THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 229933. June 16, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. EDILBERTO MILAN, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated June 16, 2021, which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 229933 (People of the Philippines v. Edilberto Milan). — Before the Court is an Appeal 1 from the Decision 2 dated November 10, 2016 of the Court of Appeals (CA)-Cebu City in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01178, which affirmed the Decision dated December 9, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 13 of Cebu City in Criminal Case No. CBU-72434. 3
The RTC found accused-appellant Edilberto Milan (Milan) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, defined and penalized under Section 11, 4 Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Milan was, therefore, sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of P500.000.00.
The Factual Antecedents
In an Information 5 dated January 27, 2005, Milan was charged with Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, defined and penalized under Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The accusatory portion reads as follows:
That on or about the 14th day of January 2005, at about 5:50 a.m., in the City of Cebu, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with deliberate intent and without being authorized by law, did then and there have in his possession and under his control the following:
Three (3) heat-sealed transparent plastic packet each containing white crystalline substance, having a total net weight of 17.36 grams locally known as "shabu" containing [Methamphetamine] Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 6
During arraignment, Milan, with the assistance of his counsel, pleaded "not guilty" to the offense charged. 7 Trial on the merits then ensued.
Version of the Prosecution
On January 14, 2005 at about 5:50 in the morning, a team led by Cebu Intelligence and Investigation Branch (CIIB) Police Chief Superintendent Pablo A. Labra II (Chief P/Supt. Labra), Senior Police Officer Alfredo Petallar (SPO1 Petallar), Police Officer Frederick Ybañez (PO1 Ybañez), Police Senior Inspector Aureo Sanchez (PSI Sanchez), Police Officer Edward Abatayo (PO2 Abatayo), Senior Police Officer Mario Gaquing (SPO2 Gaquing) and Police Officer Filomeno Mendaros (PO3 Mendaros) went to Barangay Ermita, Cebu City to implement Search Warrant No. 1465-1-0605-7 issued by Judge Simeon P. Dumdum, Jr. 8 of RTC Branch 7 against Milan and his wife, Angelina Milan. Upon their arrival at the house of Milan, the police officers knocked on the front door while announcing their presence and purpose. According to SPO1 Petallar and PO1 Ybañez, no one opened the door so when they heard that there was a commotion inside, they forcibly opened it. The police officers then read the contents of the search warrant and asked Milan for permission to search the house. There being no opposition, PO1 Ybañez conducted the search, which was witnessed by a barangay tanod. The search yielded three (3) packs of white crystalline substance believed to be shabu found inside a plastic Orocan cabinet. They also found drug paraphernalia on top of the plastic drawer. SPO1 Petallar then prepared an inventory receipt which was signed by Milan and witnessed by his son, Sonny Milan, and the barangay tanod, Bienvenido de Jacto, Jr. The packs were marked with "SW-ELM-l", "SW-ELM-2" and "SW-ELM-3." Thereafter, Milan was arrested and brought to the police station along with the marked items. 9
Upon their arrival at the police station, SPO1 Petallar prepared a letter-request which was sent to the crime laboratory together with the specimen. The results of the laboratory tests came back positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride locally known as shabu. 10
Version of the Defense
Milan vehemently denied the charges against him. According to him, at around 6:00 in the morning of January 14, 2005, he was asleep in his house when police officers arrived and forcibly entered the premises by damaging the window jalousie to open the door. The police officers then went upstairs, while ordering his wife and children to go downstairs. While the police officers were conducting a search on the second floor, he remained downstairs. Thereafter, they informed him that plastic packets of shabu were found in his drawer. Milan denied having kept packets of shabu, but they still arrested and brought him to the police station. 11
Anthony Banoso, a child witness and nephew of Milan, stated that when the police officers conducted a search in the morning of January 14, 2005, he and his uncle's family were sleeping on the second floor of the house and that he was awakened when a police officer stepped on his foot. He also testified that while the police officers were conducting a search, he saw a police officer put something inside the Orocan cabinet. Thereafter, his uncle was arrested. 12
RTC Ruling
In its Decision dated December 9, 2008 the RTC found Milan guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, or Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs. The trial court therefore, disposed of the case, viz.:
"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Edilberto Milan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 11, Article II, Republic Act 9165 and sentences him to life imprisonment plus fine in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).
The three (3) packets of shabu weighing 17.36 grams marked as Exhibit "D" to "D-3" is (sic) hereby ordered confiscated in favor of the government and destroyed pursuant to the provision of RA 9165.
SO ORDERED." 13
CA Ruling
Aggrieved by the RTC Decision, Milan, through the Public Attorney's Office (PAO), filed an appeal. The PAO argued that the trial court erred in affirming the identity and chain of custody of the seized packs of shabu despite non-compliance by the police officers with requirements set forth in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.
On November 10, 2016 the CA promulgated its Decision. 14 The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of merit, and affirmed the findings of the court a quo. According to the CA, slight infractions or nominal deviations by the police from the prescribed method of handling the corpus delicti should not exculpate an otherwise guilty defendant. 15 It further opined that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were duly preserved and that the prosecution was able to prove appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.16 The dispositive portion of the Decision reads: CAIHTE
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The December 9, 2008 Decision rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 13, Cebu City is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 17
Hence, this appeal.
The Issues
1. Whether or not Milan is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs; and,
2. Whether or not the arresting officers complied with the proper procedure in the conduct of inventory as mandated by Section 21 of R.A. 9165.
Ruling of the Court
The appeal is meritorious.
Milan was charged of violating Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, which punishes the illegal possession of dangerous drugs. To sustain a conviction under this provision, the following must first be established beyond reasonable doubt:
First, that the accused was in possession of dangerous drugs;
Second, that such possession was not authorized by law; and
Third, that the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of dangerous drugs. 18
The successful prosecution of criminal actions involving dangerous drugs depends in part on the admissibility into evidence of the subject contraband. This is so because, in drug cases, the prohibited articles confiscated from the accused comprise the very corpus delicti of the charges. Accordingly, it is of paramount importance that the identity of the seized items be established beyond reasonable doubt. In order to do so, the prosecution must prove that the illicit substance or paraphernalia recovered during the buy-bust operation is exactly the same as that offered in evidence before the court. 19
Essentially, the appeal hinges on what Milan perceives to be the arresting team's failure to comply with the requirements provided in Section 21, Article II of R.A. 9165, or the Chain of Custody Rule. In his Appellant's Brief, 20 Milan points to the following errors which, to him, warrant the reversal of his conviction: first, failure of the arresting officers to comply with the requirements set forth in Section 21; and, second, failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. According to Milan, non-compliance with these requirements cast doubt on the integrity and identity of the subject shabu, raising questions as to whether the confiscated items were indeed recovered from him.
Section 21 prescribes the manner of authenticating real evidence in drugs cases. 21 The chain of custody rule requires the prosecution to establish that the physical transfer of the subject contraband — from its confiscation from the accused up to its presentation in court — was made in such a manner that would render the planting of or tampering with evidence highly improbable. In People v. Lim, 22 the Court succinctly stated the rationale for the rule in this wise:
Specifically in the prosecution of illegal drugs, the well-established federal evidentiary rule in the United States is that when the evidence is not readily identifiable and is susceptible to alteration by tampering or contamination, courts require a more stringent foundation entailing a chain of custody of the item with sufficient completeness to render it improbable that the original item has either been exchanged with another or been contaminated or tampered with. 23
In this jurisdiction, Dangerous Drug Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, defines chain of custody as:
[T]he duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition. 24
Serving as the statutory basis for the chain of custody rule, Section 21 of R.A. 9165 is instructive to law enforcement units engaged in anti-drug operations. The provision lists the officers authorized to handle seized drugs or drug paraphernalia, their respective duties, as well as when and to whom they must turn over the confiscated articles, viz.: DETACa
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instrument/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof;
(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination;
(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done under oath by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued within twenty-four (24) hours after the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of the dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the time frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided, however, That a final certification shall be issued on the completed forensic laboratory examination on the same within the next twenty-four (24) hours;
(4) After the filing of the criminal case, the Court shall, within seventy-two (72) hours, conduct an ocular inspection of the confiscated, seized and/or surrendered dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals, including the instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, and through the PDEA shall within twenty-four (24) hours thereafter proceed with the destruction or burning of the same, in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the DOJ, civil society groups and any elected public official. The Board shall draw up the guidelines on the manner of proper disposition and destruction of such item/s which shall be borne by the offender: Provided, That those item/s of lawful commerce, as determined by the Board, shall be donated, used or recycled for legitimate purposes: Provided, further, That a representative sample, duly weighed and recorded is retained[.] 25
Jurisprudence, thus, enumerates four indispensable links that make up the chain of custody. In order to secure conviction, each must be proved with the same degree of certitude as the commission of the crime itself, viz.:
First, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer;
Second, the turnover of the seized illegal drug by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer;
Third, the turnover of the illegal drug by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and
Fourth, the turnover and submission of the illegal drug from the forensic chemist to the court. 26 (Citation omitted)
Jurisprudence is, likewise, replete with pronouncements that unjustified non-compliance with the mandatory requirements set forth in Section 21 is fatal to the prosecution's case. Marking of the seized item is merely the first stage in the chain of custody. As held in the case of People v. Coreche: 27
x x x Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link, thus it is vital that the seized contraband are immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimen will use the markings as reference. The marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings, obviating switching, 'planting,' or contamination of evidence.
After marking, the arresting officers shall proceed with the physical inventory and taking of photographs in the presence of the accused and the required witnesses. The accused and the witnesses are then required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof to serve as proof that they witnessed the inventory and that the seized item described in the certificate is the same item subject of the inventory. The inadequacy of the physical inventory conducted and the absence of the required witnesses constitute a huge and significant gap in the chain of custody which substantially affects the identity of the corpus delicti.
In Tumabini v. People, 28 the Court exhaustively explained the application of Section 21, specifically in drug cases where the seizure is pursuant to a search warrant. It repeatedly emphasized that when the drugs are seized pursuant to a search warrant, the physical inventory and taking of photographs shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served. However, it is well to remember that with the exception of this one notable difference, R.A. 9165, its Implementing Rules and Regulations and jurisprudence have consistently and uniformly applied all other requirements found in Section 21 regardless of the nature of the search and seizure.
Here, the arresting team failed to mark the items immediately after seizure and confiscation. Records show that the seized drugs were belatedly marked and the arresting officers did not offer any explanation as to why they were not marked at the place where the warrant was served and the subsequent arrest was made.
Juxtaposing Milan's arguments with Section 21, it is readily ascertainable that he relies on the first paragraph for the reversal of his conviction. Relative thereto, the apprehending team, upon seizure and confiscation of the subject shabu, should have immediately marked, photographed and physically inventoried the same in the presence of Milan, or his representative or counsel, a representative from the media, a representative from the DOJ, and any elected public official. 29 It has been held that the prompt carrying out of this procedure may be excused only when the safety and security of the arresting officers and of the required witnesses, or of the evidence are threatened by immediate or extreme danger, such as retaliatory action from those who have the resources and capability to mount a counter-assault. 30
Anent the required witnesses rule, only one out of three required witnesses was present during the marking and inventory stage — Barangay Tanod Bienvenido de Jacto, Jr. The arresting officers also failed to allege in an Affidavit that earnest efforts were made to secure the attendance of the other witnesses, i.e., representative from the media and the DOJ. It must be stressed that the arrest of Milan was neither spontaneous nor unforeseen. It was borne out of the implementation of a valid search warrant issued against him and his wife. Thus, on the basis of this alone, it may be reasonably inferred that the arresting officers, prior to the search, had more than sufficient time to prepare and go over the rules to ensure strict compliance with the same.
As explained in the case of People v. Arciaga, 31 police officers are ordinarily given sufficient time — beginning from the moment they have received the tip/information about the illegal activities of the accused until the time of his arrest — to prepare for a buy-bust operation and consequently, make the necessary arrangements beforehand knowing fully well that they would have to strictly comply with the chain of custody rule. Here, more so than ever perhaps, strict adherence is required as the police officers were armed with a. search warrant that could potentially lead to an arrest. A search warrant, by its very definition, means that the issuing judge found substantial basis for the determination of probable cause. Thus, the likelihood of seizure and arrest is higher.
Expounding on this requirement, the Court acquitted the accused in People v. Lim32 because the witnesses required by law, i.e., the DOJ and the media representative, were absent during the photograph-taking and conduct of the inventory. This Court ruled that it is mandatory to secure the attendance of these witnesses and that failure to do so is excusable only in instances such as:
First, when it is impossible to secure their attendance because the place of arrest is remote;
Second, when their safety is threatened by immediate retaliatory action of the accused or any person/s acting for and in his/her behalf;
Third, when it is elected officials who are involved in the punishable act/s;
Fourth, when earnest efforts to secure their presence within the period required under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code prove futile through no fault of the arresting officers, who face the threat of being charged with arbitrary detention; or
Fifth, when time constraints and urgency prevent the law enforcers from obtaining the presence of the required witnesses even before the offenders could escape. 33
In any of the aforementioned instances or if for any other similar reason, the required witnesses are unavailable, Lim 34 reiterates that such fact must be clearly stated in the sworn statements/affidavits of the arresting/seizing officers, as well as the steps taken to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. The prosecution witnesses must establish in detail that earnest effort to coordinate with and secure the presence of the witnesses were made, viz.:
To conclude, judicial notice is taken of the fact that arrests and seizures related to illegal drugs are typically made without a warrant; hence, subject to inquest proceedings. Relative thereto, Sections 1 (A.1.10) of the Chain of Custody Implementing Rules and Regulations directs:
A.1.10. Any justification or explanation in cases of noncompliance with the requirements of Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, shall be clearly stated in the sworn statements/affidavits of the apprehending/seizing officers, as well as the steps taken to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized/confiscated items. Certification or record of coordination for operating units other than the PDEA pursuant to Section 86(a) and (b), Article IX of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 shall be presented.
While the above-quoted provision has been the rule, it appears that it has not been practiced in most cases elevated before Us. Thus, in order to weed out early on from the courts' already congested docket any orchestrated or poorly built-up drug-related cases, the following should henceforth be enforced as a mandatory policy:
1. In the sworn statements/affidavits, the apprehending/seizing officers must state their compliance with the requirements of Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165, as amended and its IRR.
2. In case of non-observance of the provision, the apprehending/seizing officers must state the justification or explanation therefor as well as the steps they have taken in order to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized/confiscated items.
3.
4. If the investigating fiscal filed the case despite such absence, the court may exercise its discretion to either refuse to issue a commitment order (or warrant of arrest) or dismiss the case outright for lack of probable cause in accordance with Section 5, Rule 112, rules of Court. 35
Simply put, the prosecution cannot simply invoke the saving clause found in Section 21 — that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items have been preserved — without justifying their failure to comply with the requirements stated therein. Even the presumption as to regularity in the performance by police officers of their official duties cannot prevail when there has been a clear and deliberate disregard of procedural safeguards by the police officers themselves. The Court's ruling in People of the Philippines v. Umipang 36 is instructive on the matter:
Minor deviations from the procedures under R.A. 9165 would not automatically exonerate an accused from the crimes of which he or she was convicted. This is especially true when the lapses in procedure were recognized and explained in terms of justifiable grounds. There must also be a showing that the police officers intended to comply with the procedure but were thwarted by some justifiable consideration/reason. However, when there is gross disregard of the procedural safeguards prescribed in the substantive law (R.A. 9165), serious uncertainty is generated about the identity of the seized items that the prosecution presented in evidence. This uncertainty cannot be remedied by simply invoking the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties, for a gross, systematic, or deliberate disregard of the procedural safeguards effectively produces an irregularity in the performance of official duties. As a result, the prosecution is deemed to have failed to fully establish the elements of the crimes charged, creating reasonable doubt on the criminal liability of the accused.
For the arresting officers' failure to adduce justifiable grounds, we are led to conclude from the totality of the procedural lapses committed in this case that the arresting officers deliberately disregarded the legal safeguards under R.A. 9165. These lapses effectively produced serious doubts on the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti, especially in the face of allegations of frame-up. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, we must resolve the doubt in favor of accused-appellant, as every fact necessary to constitute the crime must be established by proof beyond reasonable doubt.
As a final note, we reiterate our past rulings calling upon the authorities to exert greater efforts in combating the drug menace using the safeguards that our lawmakers have deemed necessary for the greater benefit of our society. The need to employ a more stringent approach to scrutinizing the evidence of the prosecution especially when the pieces of evidence were derived from a buy-bust operation redounds to the benefit of the criminal justice system by protecting civil liberties and at the same time instilling rigorous discipline on prosecutors. 37
The prosecution's failure to justify its non-compliance with the requirements found in Section 21, specifically the place where the evidence is marked and the presence of the three required witnesses during the actual inventory of the seized items, is fatal to their case. These procedural lapses constitute a substantial gap in the chain of custody. As such, it cannot be cured by the simple expedient of invoking the saving clause. A substantial gap or break in the chain of custody casts serious doubt on the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti. Hence, Milan must be acquitted. aDSIHc
Finally, it cannot be gainsaid that it is mandated by no less than the Constitution 38 that an accused in a criminal case shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. In People v. Hilario, 39 the Court ruled that the prosecution bears the burden to overcome such presumption. If the prosecution fails to discharge this burden, the accused deserves a judgment of acquittal. On the other hand, if the existence of proof beyond reasonable doubt is established by the prosecution, the accused gets a guilty verdict. In order to merit conviction, the prosecution must rely on the strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness of evidence presented by the defense. 40
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated November 10, 2016 of the Court of Appeals-Cebu City in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01178 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Hence, accused-appellant EDILBERTO MILAN is ACQUITTED of the crime charged on the ground of reasonable doubt, and is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention unless he is being lawfully held for another cause.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to report to this Court the action he has taken within five days from receipt of this Resolution. A copy shall also be furnished to the Police General of the Philippine National Police and the Department of Justice for their information and guidance.
Let an entry of final judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED.(Hernando, J., on leave)
By authority of the Court:
MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) RUMAR D. PASIONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 17-19.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Pablito A. Perez, with Associate Justices Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and Gabriel T. Robeniol, concurring; id. at 4-6.
3. Id. at 4.
4.Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. —
xxx xxx xxx
x x x if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows:
(1) Life Imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if the quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu" is ten (10) grams or more but less than fifty (50) grams.
xxx xxx xxx
5. Rollo, p. 5.
6. Id.
7. Id. at 82-83.
8. CA rollo, p. 56.
9. Id. at 6-7.
10. Id. at 7.
11. Id. at 7-8.
12. Id. at 8.
13. Id. at 4-5.
14. Id. at 4-16.
15. Id. at 12.
16. Id. at 13.
17. Id.
18. People v. Ismael, 805 Phil. 21, 29 (2017).
19. People v. Oliva, G.R. No. 234156, January 7, 2019.
20. CA rollo, pp. 27-39.
21. People v. Lim, G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.
22. Supra.
23. Id. (Emphasis omitted).
24. Dangerous Drug Board Regulation No. 1, s. 2002, Sec. 1 (b).
25. Republic Act No. 9165, Article II, Sec. 21.
26. People v. Gayoso, 808 Phil. 19, 31 (2017). (Emphasis supplied)
27. 612 Phil. 1238, 1244 (2009).
28. G.R. No. 224495, February 19, 2020.
29. People v. Coronel, 829 Phil. 645, 655 (2018).
30. People v. Romy Lim y Miranda, G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.
31. G.R. No. 239471, January 14, 2019.
32. Supra at note 23.
33. Id.
34. Supra at note 23.
35. Id.
36. 686 Phil. 1024 (2012).
37. Id. at 1053-1054. (Citations omitted)
38. Article III, Section 14 (2) of the Constitution mandates:
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
39. 823 Phil. 580, 605 (2018).
40. Id.