FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 241318. September 29, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.RACHEL MONTEJAR y GAJE A.K.A. RACHEL MONDEJAR AND RAYNALD MIRENQUEZ y MORALES, accused,
RACHEL MONTEJAR y GAJE A.K.A. RACHEL MONDEJAR, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 29, 2021which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 241318 (People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, v. Rachel Montejar y Gaje a.k.a. Rachel Mondejar and Raynald Mirenquez y Morales, accused; Rachel Montejar y Gaje a.k.a. Rachel Mondejar, accused-appellant). — This is an appeal from the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated May 31, 2018, in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01560-MIN, affirming the Joint Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Tubod, Lanao del Norte (RTC), finding accused-appellant Rachel Montejar y Gaje (Rachel) and accused Raynald Mirenquez y Morales (Raynald) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11, 3 Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, for the illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
Two (2) Informations dated May 12, 2011 charged Rachel with Violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, viz.:
Criminal Case No. 823-07-2011
That on the 11th day of May 2011 at around 6:00 A.M.[,] more or less[,] at Purok 5A, Aloha, Tubod, Lanao del Norte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused[,] who are live-in partners, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping each other, without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously possess and have in their custody and control the following, to wit: Thirty[-]Six (36) pcs. of transparent sachet[s] containing white crystalline substance place[d] in a plastic container with green plastic cover; Seventeen (17) pcs. medium size transparent plastic sachet[s] containing while crystalline substance place[d] in a blue plastic GATSBY container with blue plastic cover; and Nine (9) pcs. large size transparent plastic sachet while crystalline substance place[d] in a plastic container with violet cover, all containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or "shabu," with total weight of 2.83 [gram][,] more or less, the accused knowing the same to be Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or "shabu," a dangerous and prohibited drug which were then confiscated by IO-1 Samuel L. Salang II, an Agent of PDEA Regional Office X, Cagayan de Oro City during a buy-bust operation.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
Criminal Case No. 824-07-2011
That on or about 6:00 o'clock in the morning[,] more or less[,] of May 11, 2011, at Purok 5A, Aloha, Tubod, Lanao del Norte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, who are live-in partners, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping each other, without being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, or "shabu" weighing more or less 0.05 [gram] to IO3 RUBYLYN S. ALFARO, [a]n agent of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency assigned at PDEA Regional Office No. X, who acted as poseur-buyer, said accused knowing fully well that the same is Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or "shabu," a Prohibited Drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
Upon arraignment on May 31, 2011, both of the accused pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged. 6
During the trial, the prosecution presented Forensic Chemist Charity Peralta Caceres (Forensic Chemist Caceres), IO3 Rubylyn Alfaro (IO3 Alfaro), IO1 Samuel Salang (IO1 Salang), SPO1 Florence Eusebio (SPO1 Eusebio) and Barangay Kagawad Roberto Lucot (Lucot) as witnesses. The defense presented Rachel, Sixto Ortiz (Ortiz) and Glenn Michelle Salido (Salido) as witnesses.
The respective versions of the parties, as stated by the Court of Appeals, are as follows:
Version of the Prosecution
IO3 Rubylyn Alfaro (IO3 Alfaro) testified that on 10 May 2011 at about 4 o'clock in the afternoon, the Office of the Operation Division of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) of Cagayan de Oro City received an information coming from Tubod, Lanao del Norte that drug peddlers by the name of Amay Gaje and a certain Brando were peddling drugs in their house at Purok 5-A, Aloha, Poblacion, Tubod, Lanao del Norte. The PDEA Regional Director then instructed the PDEA agents to form a team to conduct a possible buy-bust operation against the said persons. IO3 Alfaro was designated as the poseur-buyer, while IO1 Samuel L. Salang (IO1 Salang) was designated as the arresting officer.
The PDEA agents reached Tubod, Lanao del Sur at about 4:30 in the morning of 11 May 2011 and met their confidential informant. At about 5 o'clock that morning, the confidential informant and IO3 Alfaro proceeded on foot towards the house of Rachel in Purok 5-A, Aloha, Tubod, Lanao del Norte. Upon reaching near the front door of Rachel's house, the confidential informant called Amay (Rachel's nickname). From the door of Rachel's house, IO[3] Alfaro saw Rachel facing the front door and sitting near a table. The confidential informant then approached her and made a casual talk pertaining to a disco. Thereafter, he introduced IO3 Alfaro as his friend who wanted to buy shabu. Rachel asked how much and IO3 Alfaro replied Php500.00 worth of shabu. Rachel opened her small pouch bag and took a small container with a green cover and took therefrom a small transparent sachet. She then called Brando (Raynald) and ordered him to give the same to [I]O3 Alfaro. Raynald did as requested. He also received the Php500.00 buy-bust money in exchange of the sachet and then handed the buy-bust money to Rachel.
After receiving the sachet of shabu, IO3 Alfaro pocketed the same. The confidential informant bid Rachel goodbye. [I]O3 Alfaro and the confidential informant then left Rachel's house and proceeded to the PDEA vehicle. While on the way to the PDEA vehicle, IO3 Alfaro gave IO1 Salang the pre-arranged signal (i.e., [,] a missed call) to inform him that the sale of shabu has been consummated. IO1 Salang, together with other PDEA agents[,] immediately rushed to the accused's house and arrested them. After the arrest, IO3 Alfaro returned to the accused's house and handed to IO1 Salang the sachet of shabu she bought from the accused. IO1 Salang then wrote "BBSLS-1 5/11/11" on the said sachet in her presence. IO[3] Alfaro was able to identify the sachet of shabu she brought (sic) from the accused as well as the buy-bust money she handed to the accused.
IO1 Salang, on the other hand, testified that after receiving the pre-arranged signal from IO3 Alfaro, he and his team immediately rushed to the house of Rachel and announced that they are PDEA Agents. Rachel and Raynald were arrested citing as basis their violation of R.A. 9165, Section [5] for selling drug. The PDEA agents also informed them of the Miranda Doctrine and handcuffed them. The PDEA agents confiscated thirty-six (36) pieces of sachets containing the suspected shabu placed in a green plastic container, seventeen (17) pieces of medium-sized sachets of suspected shabu placed in a blue Gatsby container and nine (9) pieces of large-sized sachets of suspected shabu placed in a container with violet cover placed on the table with a chair, where Rachel was previously sitting. The arresting team also confiscated the Php500.00 marked money on the table.
After the confiscation of the items, IO3 Alfaro arrived and handed to IO1 Salang the sachet of shabu from the buy-bust. He then marked the said sachet with "BBSLS-1 5/11/11" in the presence of IO3 Alfaro, Barangay Kagawad Roberto Lucot (Kagawad Lucot), and Purok Chairman Isidro Laping (Purok Chairman Laping). Thereafter, an inventory was made at the house of the accused in the presence of the accused, as well as, Kagawad Lucot and Purok Chairman Laping. IO1 Salang also prepared the Certificate of Inventory and photographs were also taken at the time of the inventory. IO1 Salang also brought to the crime laboratory all the sachets of shabu taken from the accused and a letter requesting for the examination of the suspected sachets.
The prosecution also alleged that SPO1 Florence Eusebio (SPO1 Eusebio) received the letter and the sachets of suspected shabu submitted by IO1 Salang in the crime laboratory. Thereafter, SPO1 Eusebio gave the letter and the sachets of suspected shabu to the Forensic Chemist [Charity] Peralta Caseres upon her arrival at the crime laboratory in Iligan City. The forensic chemist also testified that she conducted laboratory examinations on the crystalline substance inside the sachet with markings "BBSLS-1 511/11" as well as those crystalline substance inside the 36 sachets with markings "SLS-1 5/11/11" to "SLS-36 5/11/11", 17 medium-sized sachets with markings "SLS-37 5/11/11" to "SLS-53 5/11/11" and 9 large-sized sachets with markings "SLS-54 5/11/11" to "SLS-62 5/11/11" which [were] all found to be positive of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu.
Version of the Defense
On 11 May 2011, Rachel, together with her four (4) children and her [live]-in partner and co-accused, Raynald (who is also called Brando), were sleeping at the second floor of her two-storey house. Rachel woke up early that day due to a commotion she heard at the lower portion of her house. However, she failed to get out from her room because a group of armed men wearing masks, caps and jackets, suddenly kicked the door of her room. As a result, she was hit by the panel of her door and thereafter fell on the floor.
The armed men also kicked, boxed, and hit Raynald with their firearms. She was also prevented from going near him, was handcuffed and later instructed to go down to the first floor of her house. Raynald was likewise instructed to go down [to] the first floor of the house.
The armed intruders searched the room in the second floor and the living room in the first floor as well as inside her store, where its door was destroyed by the armed men. Biscuits and soft drinks were taken from the said store.
At the first floor, Rachel was instructed to sit on a chair, fronting a table with sachets of shabu and P500.00 bill on top of it. After the search, Kagawad Lucot and a purok leader were called and invited to the house. Thereafter, she and her co-accused [were] brought to the police station and charges were pressed against them. 7
In a Joint Decision 8 dated July 1, 2016, the RTC found the accused Rachel Montejar and Raynald Mirenguez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WITH THE FOR[E]GOING DISQUISITION, judgment is hereby rendered:
1. Finding accused RACHEL MONTEJAR Y GAJE a.k.a Rachel Mondejar and RAYNALD MIRENQUEZ y MORALES guilty beyond reasonable doubt for Violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 and is hereby sentenced to suffer each LIFE IMPRISONMENT and each to pay a fine of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND (Php500,000.00) PESOS.
2. Finding accused RACHEL MONTEJAR Y GAJE a.k.a Rachel Mondejar and RAYNALD MIRENQUEZ y MORALES guilty beyond reasonable doubt for Violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 and is hereby sentenced to suffer each Indeterminate Penalty of TWELVE YEARS[,] as minimum[,] to SEVENTEEN YEARS, as maximum, and each to pay a fine of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND (Php300,000.00) PESOS.
SO ORDERED. 9
The RTC held that the prosecution was able to establish the illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, and that the rule on chain of custody in the cases at bar was substantially complied with. It declared that the positive assertion of the prosecution witnesses cannot prevail over mere denial by the accused.
Only Rachel appealed the decision of the RTC to the CA. In her Appellant's Brief, Rachel alleged that the trial court erred in: (1) finding a justifiable ground for non-compliance with the requisites under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165; (2) ruling that the integrity and credibility of the corpus delicti have been properly preserved; and (3) finding the appellant guilty of the crimes charged by relying on the weakness of the defense rather than on the strength of the prosecution's evidence. 10
In its Decision dated May 31, 2018, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. The fallo of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the 1 July 2016 Joint Decision of the RTC Branch 7 in Criminal Case No. 823-07-2011 and Criminal Case No. 824-07-2011, is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 11
The CA held that all the elements for illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu were duly established by the prosecution and the integrity and evidentiary value of the items seized were preserved. It found no merit in appellant's allegation that there was an invalid warrantless search and seizure as the sale over a sachet of shabu between appellant and IO3 Alfaro was already consummated before IO1 Salang went to appellant's house to arrest her. The appellate court stated that there was a valid ground to arrest appellant under Section 5 12 of Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (i.e., that she violated Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165). It ruled that appellant's defenses of denial and frame-up are weak defenses that are viewed by the Court with disfavor because they can easily be feigned and fabricated.
Rachel appealed the decision of the CA to this Court. In her Supplemental Brief, 13 she prays for her acquittal on this pertinent ground: there are broken gaps in the chain of custody, thus, the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated sachets were not properly preserved.
Rachel contends that the apprehending team did not immediately mark the confiscated items. Records show that, after the alleged transaction between poseur-buyer IO3 Alfaro and appellant, IO3 Alfaro waited in the PDEA service vehicle for thirty (30) minutes. IO3 Alfaro, as the poseur-buyer, had the initial custody and control of the drugs. It was only after the apprehension of appellant and the search of her house was concluded that IO3 Alfaro returned to the target area and turned over the alleged seized dangerous drug to IO1 Salang. However, IO3 Alfaro did not make any immediate marking after taking possession of the alleged dangerous drugs, and it was not shown that the marking was made in the presence of appellant. Without any evidence or showing in the records as to how the integrity of the evidence was preserved, marked, or handled by the poseur-buyer before its turnover to IO1 Salang, there exists possible tampering of the evidence. The doubt as to the integrity of the evidence is more pronounced by the prosecution's failure to present the confidential informant in court to corroborate the circumstances surrounding the handling of the seized drug. Moreover, the inventory was conducted only in the presence of a barangay official, without the presence of the other required witnesses, namely, a representative from the DOJ and the media.
The main issue is whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the decision of the RTC finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
The appeal is meritorious.
Appellant is charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, penalized under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. To secure conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must prove: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 14 For illegal possession of dangerous drugs, it must be established that: (1) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug. 15
In cases involving dangerous drugs, the confiscated drug constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction. 16 It is essential, therefore, that the identity and integrity of the seized drug be established with moral certainty. 17 Thus, in order to obviate any unnecessary doubt on its identity, the prosecution has to show an unbroken chain of custody over the same and account for each link in the chain of custody from the moment the drug is seized up to its presentation in court as evidence of the crime. 18
In this relation, Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 provides the chain of custody rule, outlining the procedure that police officers must follow in handling the seized drugs in order to ensure that their integrity and evidentiary value are preserved. 19 Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, before its amendment by R.A. No. 10640, which is applicable to this case, states:
SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/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 x x x;
The procedure in Section 21 (1) is further amplified in the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165, thus:
SECTION 21. x x x. —
(a) The apprehending officer/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: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items;
The procedure under Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 is a matter of substantive law and cannot be brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality. 20 Substantive law requires strict observance of these procedural safeguards. 21
The prosecution must establish these four links: (1) the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turn-over of the illegal drug seized to the investigating officer; (3) the turn-over by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) the turn-over and submission of the illegal drug from the forensic chemist to the court. 22
The chain of custody starts immediately after seizure when the apprehending officers are required to do a physical inventory of the items seized. 23 Marking "means the placing by the apprehending officer or the police poseur-buyer of his/her initials and signature on the dangerous drug seized." 24
Since marking "is the starting point in the custodial link," it is "vital that the seized contraband be immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference." 25 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, thus, preventing switching, planting or contamination of evidence. 26 This is also to "ensure that the objects seized are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually offered in evidence, as well as to protect innocent persons from dubious and concocted searches, and the apprehending officers from harassment suits based on planting of evidence." 27
In this case, poseur-buyer IO3 Alfaro testified that she pocketed the seized item after the sale and she and the confidential informant proceeded to the PDEA's parked vehicle. After 30 minutes, IO3 Alfaro returned to the target area, at which time the accused-appellant had been arrested and IO3 Alfaro turned over the seized item to IO1 Salang during the time IO1 Salang made the inventory. 28 IO1 Salang testified that he marked the seized item turned over to him by IO3 Alfaro with "BB," which means "buy-bust." 29
It bears emphasis that IO3 Alfaro turned over the seized item to IO1 Salang without marking. The fact that the seized item was not immediately marked after seizure and kept in the possession of IO3 Alfaro for 30 minutes from the time she left the target area and the time she returned to hand the seized item to IO1 Salang during the inventory would inescapably raise doubt as to the identity and integrity of the seized item. IO3 Alfaro failed to explain why she had to leave the target site and remain in the PDEA vehicle for 30 minutes instead of rejoining the apprehending team when they arrived at the target site after her missed call. Absent the immediate marking of the seized item, the evils of switching, planting or contamination of evidence were not guarded against, and the identity and integrity of the seized item have become open to doubt.
Further, under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR, the apprehending officer/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: (1) the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel; (2) a representative from the media and the DOJ; and (3) any elected public official, who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
The insulating presence of the representative from the media or the DOJ, or any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the seized drugs would prevent the evils of switching, "planting" or contamination of the evidence and preserve an unbroken chain of custody. 30
In this case, no representatives from the DOJ and the media were present during the seizure, marking, inventory and photographing of the confiscated dangerous drugs. Only a barangay kagawad, representing an elected public official, was present.
Nevertheless, the proviso in Section 21 of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 states that non-compliance with the requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.
In other words, the failure of the apprehending team to strictly comply with the procedure laid out in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR does not ipso facto render the seizure and custody over the items as void and invalid, provided that the prosecution satisfactorily proves that: (a) there is justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. 31 For the saving clause to apply, the prosecution must explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses, and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized evidence had nonetheless been preserved. 32 The justifiable ground for non-compliance must be proven as a fact, because the Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist. 33
In this case, the prosecution did not proffer any explanation to justify why there were no representatives from the media and the DOJ during the seizure, marking, inventory and photographing of the seized drugs. Considering that the buy-bust operation is, by its very nature, a planned activity, the buy-bust team had enough time and opportunity to bring with them the required witnesses 34 or to ensure their presence at the target site. Moreover, the prosecution failed to explain why the accused/appellant did not sign the Inventory. 35 Since the prosecution failed to allege and prove justifiable grounds for noncompliance, the saving clause under Section 21 of the IRR will not apply. 36
Considering that at the point of seizure, i.e., the first link in the "chain of custody," irregularities were already attendant, it becomes futile to prove the rest of the links in the chain. 37
Since the prosecution failed to proffer an explanation to justify the procedural lapses, it follows that there are unjustified gaps in the chain of custody of the item seized from the appellant, which militate against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, warranting the acquittal of appellant. 38
In view of the foregoing, the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the decision of the RTC, finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
As a final note, it must be pointed out that, although it was only appellant Rachel Montejar who appealed from the respective decisions of the RTC and the CA, the judgment of acquittal by this Court shall benefit accused Raynald Mirenquez following the Court's ruling in People v. Posos, et al., 39 which applied Section 11, Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, and held as follows:
As for Thelma Grezola, while she is not a party to this appeal and the Court of Appeals had already issued a Partial Entry of Judgment insofar as she is concerned, she may still benefit from this verdict of acquittal, in accordance with Section 11, Rule 122 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, viz.:
Sec. 11. Effect of appeal by any of several accused. —
(a) An appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated May 31, 2018, in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01560-MIN, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant Rachel Montejar y Gaje and accused Raynald Mirenquez y Morales are hereby ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt. The Court ORDERS their IMMEDIATE RELEASE from detention, unless they are being lawfully held for another cause. Let an entry of final judgment be ISSUED immediately.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Regional Superintendent of the Davao Prison and Penal Farm, Davao del Norte and the Provincial Jail Warden of the Province of Lanao del Norte, for immediate implementation of the Court's Order. The Regional Superintendent and Provincial Jail Warden are ORDERED to REPORT to this Court the action they have taken within five (5) working days from receipt of this Resolution.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
by:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Oscar V. Badelles, with Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Tita Marilyn Payoyo-Villordon concurring; rollo, pp. 5-16.
2. In Criminal Case Nos. 823-07-2011 and 824-07-2011.
3. For illegal sale of 0.05 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu and illegal possession of a total of 2.83 grams of shabu.
4. Records, Criminal Case No. 823-07-2011, p. 1.
5. Records, Criminal Case No. 824-07-2011, p. 1.
6. Records, Criminal Case No. 823-07-2011, pp. 29-30; id. at 29.
7.Rollo, pp. 7-9.
8. CA rollo, pp. 81-87.
9.Id. at 87.
10.Rollo, p. 10.
11.Id. at 15.
12. Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with Section 7 of Rule 112.
13.Rollo, pp. 29-41.
14.People v. Año, 828 Phil. 439, 448 (2018).
15.People v. Guanzon, G.R. No. 233653, September 5, 2018.
16.People v. Fulinara, G.R. No. 237975, June 19, 2019.
17.Id.
18.Id.
19.People v. Año, supra note 14.
20.Id. at 452.
21.People v. Adobar, 832 Phil. 731, 768 (2018).
22.Id. at 763; People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 231 (2015).
23.People v. Dungo, G.R. No. 229720, August 19, 2019.
24.Id.
25.Id.
26.People v. Dahil, supra note 22, at 232.
27.People v. Dela Peña, 754 Phil. 323, 343 (2015).
28. TSN, August 1, 2011, pp. 9-10, 23, 24.
29.Id. at 35.
30.People v. Mendoza, 736 Phil. 749, 764 (2014).
31.People v. Año, supra note 14, at 450.
32.Id.
33.Id., citing People v. De Guzman, 630 Phil. 637, 649 (2010).
34.People v. Adobar, supra note 21, at 754.
35. Records, Criminal Case No. 824-07-2011, p. 6.
36. See People v. Dungo, supra note 23.
37.People v. Adobar, supra note 21, at 758.
38. See People v. Año, supra note 14, at 451-452, citing People v. Lintag, 794 Phil. 411, 420 (2010).
39. G.R. No. 226492, October 2, 2019.