FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 253650. July 28, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.RYAN MOYO y SARAMPOTE A.K.A. "BURDADO", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 28, 2021which reads as follows: cSEDTC
"G.R. No. 253650 (People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee v. Ryan Moyo y Sarampote a.k.a. "Burdado," accused-appellant).
This is an Appeal 1 from the June 19, 2020 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10655. The CA modified the February 5, 2018 Consolidated Judgment 3 of the Regional Trial Court of Legazpi City, Branch 3 (RTC), which found Ryan Moyo y Sarampote (accused-appellant) guilty of violating: a) Section 5, 4 Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, 5 in Criminal Case No. 14120; and b) R.A. No. 10591, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act, in Criminal Case No. 14122.
Antecedents
Accused-appellant was charged with violation of Secs. 5 and 11, 6 Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, and violation of R.A. No. 10591, in three (3) separate informations. The accusatory portions of said informations read:
Criminal Case No. 14120
That on May 5, 2016 at about 6:40 o'clock in the morning, in Purok 5, Sogong, Barangay Ilawod, Municipality of Camalig, Province of Albay, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and knowingly sell 0.079 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, or commonly known as "shabu," to a poseur-buyer in the amount of Six Hundred ([P600.00]), to the damage and prejudice of public interest.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW. 7
Criminal Case No. 14121
That on May 5, 2016 at about 6:40 o'clock in the morning, in Purok 5, Sogong, Barangay Ilawod, Municipality of Camalig, Province of Albay, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and knowingly have in his possession and control three (3) transparent heat-sealed sachets containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or commonly known as "shabu," a dangerous drug, with a total weight of 0.065 [gram] without necessary authority to possess the same, to the damage and prejudice of public welfare.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW. 8
Criminal Case No. 14122
That on or about 6:40 in the morning of May 5, 2016, at Barangay Ilawod, Municipality of Camalig, Province of Albay, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control one (1) Caliber [.45] pistol and one (1) live ammunition chamber load and another steel magazine for caliber .45 pistol with nine (9) live ammunitions tucked on his right waist, to the damage and prejudice of the public safety and welfare.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW. 9
During arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded "not guilty" to the charges against him. Trial ensued thereafter.
Version of the Prosecution
On May 5, 2016, members of the Albay Criminal Investigation and Detection Team, together with a confidential informant (CI), held a briefing for the conduct of a buy-bust operation and implementation of Search Warrant Nos. T-2016-129 to 130 against herein accused-appellant, who was one of the top ten drug personalities 10 in Albay. Senior Police Officer 2 Joven L. Osurman (SPO2 Osurman) was designated as the poseur-buyer while Police Officer 3 Jayson B. Cepeda (PO3 Cepeda) was assigned as the arresting officer. The rest of the team served as backup. Team Leader Police Chief Inspector Saguisag L. Miras prepared the Pre-Operation Report 11 and Coordination Forms. 12 Subsequently, the team coordinated with the Camalig Police Station.
The team proceeded to the target area at Purok 5, Sogong, Barangay Ilawod, Camalig, Albay. 13 Thereat, the team members positioned themselves strategically while SPO2 Osurman and the CI approached accused-appellant in front of his house. The CI introduced SPO2 Osurman as an interested buyer of P600.00 worth of shabu. Accused-appellant then brought out from his black belt bag a heat-sealed plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance and gave it to SPO2 Osurman who, in turn, handed over the buy-bust money to accused-appellant. Subsequently, SPO2 Osurman scratched his head to signal that the drug transaction had been consummated. The other team members rushed to the scene. PO3 Cepeda arrested accused-appellant, requested the latter to lie face down, and apprised him of his constitutional rights. PO3 Cepeda recovered the buy-bust money in accused-appellant's left hand and found a caliber .45 pistol tucked in the latter's waist. For safety, PO3 Cepeda confiscated the said firearm and released its magazine which was loaded with seven (7) bullets. 14
Then, the buy-bust team summoned the representatives from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and a barangay official. Upon arrival of the required witnesses at the scene, PO3 Cepeda frisked accused-appellant and found on him a steel magazine and a sling bag which contained a plastic container with three (3) more heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets with white crystalline substance. 15
SPO2 Osurman marked the item subject of the sale transaction with "JLO 5-5-16." On the other hand, PO3 Cepeda marked the confiscated firearm, steel magazine, and the other three (3) heat-sealed transparent sachets with "JC1A 5-5-16," "JC2 5-5-16," "JC3B 5-5-16," "JC3C 5-5-16," and "JC3D 5-5-16," respectively. The inventory of the seized items was conducted in the presence of accused-appellant, Barangay Kagawad Saturnino Villaraza, DOJ representative Monnette M. Reantaso, and media representative Bing Alerta who all signed the Receipt/Inventory of the Property Seized/Certificate of Inventory. 16 Photographs 17 were likewise taken for documentation purposes. The team then went on to implement the search warrant at accused-appellant's house. 18
Subsequently, the team proceeded to the Camalig Police Station for blotter entry and then to the Albay Provincial Office for documentation. SPO2 Osurman delivered the seized drugs to the crime laboratory. The confiscated drugs were received by Police Senior Inspector Wilfredo I. Pabustan, Jr. (PSI Pabustan) who conducted a qualitative and quantitative examination which yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. PSI Pabustan's findings and conclusions were reduced in Chemistry Report Nos. D-271-2016 19 and D-272-2016. 20
The RTC dispensed with the testimony of PSI Pabustan in view of the stipulations 21 reached by the parties. In said stipulations, it was indicated that PSI Pabustan turned over the items to the evidence custodian, SPO1 Maribel Bagato (SPO1 Bagato). 22 Pursuant to the subpoena duces tecum issued by Prosecutor Jenifer B. Balleras-Bagay (Prosecutor Balleras-Bagay), PSI Pabustan retrieved the specimens from SPO1 Bagato and turned them over to Prosecutor Balleras-Bagay. 23
Version of the Defense
At around 6:00 a.m. of May 5, 2016, accused-appellant was on his motorcycle waiting for a co-worker along a road in Barangay Ilawod, Camalig, Albay, when a maroon FX van stopped near him. A man, later on identified as PO3 Cepeda, alighted therefrom and asked accused-appellant if he was Ryan Moyo, to which he answered in the affirmative. PO3 Cepeda suddenly ordered accused-appellant to lie down and shouting "Putang ina babarilin kita!" Frightened, accused-appellant acceded to PO3 Cepeda's command. Accused-appellant then noticed that an amount of P600.00 and a sachet containing drugs were dropped where he was. Pictures of accused-appellant in several angles were subsequently taken.
Thereafter, PO3 Cepeda, together with four (4) other companions, brought accused-appellant to his (accused-appellant's) house which was around 100 to 150 meters away. Upon arrival thereat, accused-appellant instructed his common-law wife Dayrel Potonia (Potonia), who was inside, to open the door. Two (2) men entered the house while accused-appellant and Potonia were made to stay outside. Later on, accused-appellant was brought to the Camalig Police Station. 24
The RTC Ruling
In its February 5, 2018 Consolidated Judgment, 25 the RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of dangerous drugs and illegal possession of firearms, but acquitted him of illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
In Criminal Case No. 14120, the RTC held that the prosecution had sufficiently established all the elements of Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, having proved that accused-appellant sold one (1) plastic sachet of shabu worth P600.00 during the buy-bust operation to SPO2 Osurman. 26 It gave weight to the prosecution witnesses' testimonies positively identifying accused-appellant as the illegal seller of the seized drugs. The RTC also noted that the police officers complied with the rule on the chain of custody 27 under Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 since all the required witnesses were present during the inventory. Lastly, the RTC disregarded accused-appellant's weak defense of denial for lack of merit.
In Criminal Case No. 14121, the RTC dismissed the charge for violation of Sec. 11, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165. The RTC noted that considerable time had lapsed from the time the suspect was arrested and the first body-search conducted by PO3 Cepeda (where the buy-bust money and the gun were recovered), to the second search after the witnesses arrived (when three [3] more sachets of shabu were recovered). During the waiting period, accused-appellant was already restrained and under the total control of the apprehending officers. Thus, the RTC entertained doubt as to the identity and evidentiary value of the three (3) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets found on accused-appellant during the second search. 28
In Criminal Case No. 14122, the RTC found that the prosecution was able to prove all the elements of the crime of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition, considering that from the records of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Firearms and Explosives Office, accused-appellant is not a holder of any license or permit to own, possess, and carry firearm of any caliber. Consequently, his possession of the confiscated firearm was unlawful and/or proscribed by law. 29
The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the Court renders judgment as follows:
a) In Criminal Case No. 14120, the Court finds accused Ryan Moyo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal selling of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or Shabu, proscribed and penalized under Sec. 5, Article II, of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Considering the abolition of the death penalty under Republic Act No. 9346, the accused is sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos ([P]500,000.00).
b) In Criminal Case No. 14121, the accused is acquitted on insufficiency of evidence.
c) In Criminal Case No. 14122, the Court finds accused Ryan Moyo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal possession of firearm proscribed by Republic Act No. 10591. He is meted the penalty of imprisonment of 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum to 12 years and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum.
Conformably with Supreme Court Circular No. 4-92-A, the Court directs the issuance of mittimus for the immediate remission of the accused to the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City.
The Court further directs the Branch Clerk of Court, with the assistance of the Clerk III in charge of criminal cases, to transmit the drug evidence submitted by the prosecution to the Dangerous Drugs Board, or the PDEA, Regional Office No. 5, Legazpi City, immediately upon the promulgation of this consolidated judgment, for destruction in accordance with laws, rules, or regulations. The Court directs the Dangerous Drugs Board, or the PDEA, to submit to the Court a report on the destruction of the drug evidence within Five (5) days thereof.
The Court likewise directs the Branch Clerk of Court, with the assistance of the Clerk III in charge of criminal cases, to transmit the firearms and ammunitions, which are confiscated in favor of the State, to the Firearms and Explosives Office, Camp Simeon Ola, Legazpi City, for appropriate disposition in accordance with pertinent regulations.
SO ORDERED. 30
Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed to the CA.
The CA Ruling
In its June 19, 2020 Decision, 31 the CA partially granted the appeal as follows:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The February 5, 2018 Consolidated Judgment rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Fifth Judicial Region, Branch 3, Legazpi City, in Criminal Case No. 14120 is AFFIRMED. In Criminal Case No. 14122, accused-appellant Ryan Moyo y Sarampote is ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt.
SO ORDERED. 32
In Criminal Case No. 14120, the CA affirmed accused-appellant's conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, as it found SPO2 Osurman's testimony on the completed buy-bust operation credible. It held that the prosecution was able to prove the sale of shabu between accused-appellant, as the seller, and SPO2 Osurman, as the poseur-buyer, and that the integrity of the seized drugs was preserved. The totality of the prosecution's evidence showed the continuous whereabouts of the dangerous drug from the time it was confiscated and tested in the crime laboratory until it was offered in evidence in court.
In the same decision, the CA acquitted accused-appellant in Criminal Case No. 14122 for violation of R.A. No. 10591. The CA held that the prosecution failed to prove that accused-appellant had no license to possess or own the firearm. 33 The certification from the PNP Civil Security Group Firearms and Explosives Office was issued on March 30, 2016, prior to the seizure of the subject firearm on May 5, 2016. Said certification merely proved that accused-appellant was not a licensed firearm holder as of the date of issuance but not at the time he was arrested. 34 Consequently, accused-appellant was acquitted of violation of R.A. No. 10591 on the ground of reasonable doubt. 35
Hence, this instant appeal.
Assignment of Errors
Accused-appellant raises the following errors in support of his appeal, viz.:
I.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT ACCUSED-APPELLANT IS GUILTY OF VIOLATION OF SECTION 5, ARTICLE II OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165 DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY AND EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF THE ALLEGEDLY SEIZED DANGEROUS DRUGS. 36
II.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT TOTALLY DISREGARDED THE VERSION OF THE DEFENSE AND RELIED HEAVILY ON THE PROSECUTION'S VERSION. 37
On November 23, 2020, this Court issued a Resolution, 38 which notified the parties that they may file their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desired. In its February 22, 2021 Manifestation (Re: Supplemental Brief), 39 the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) manifested that it would no longer file a supplemental brief considering that the guilt of accused-appellant was exhaustively discussed in its appellee's brief and no new issue was raised in the automatic review. In its February 8, 2021 Manifestation (In Lieu of a Supplemental Brief), 40 accused-appellant averred that he would no longer file a supplemental brief since he had sufficiently refuted all the arguments raised in the appellee's brief.
In said Appellant's Brief 41 filed before the CA, accused-appellant argues that the prosecution failed to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the purported seized drugs. 42 The prosecution failed to convincingly show that the pieces of evidence submitted before the court a quo were the same drugs allegedly sold and seized from accused-appellant. 43 Furthermore, accused-appellant maintains that the buy-bust team failed to comply with the three-witness rule provided under Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 since the representatives from the DOJ and the media, and an elected public official arrived only after the arrest of accused-appellant. The said witnesses were not physically present at the time of the arrest but only during the inventory. 44
On the other hand, the OSG urges this Court to affirm accused-appellant's conviction for violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165. 45 The OSG maintains that the prosecution had duly established the elements of the offense as charged. There was an unbroken chain of custody from SPO2 Osurman's confiscation of the plastic sachets from accused-appellant, to the markings he placed thereon after accused-appellant's arrest, until the request and turnover of the same for laboratory examination which yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Consequently, the integrity and identity of the seized drugs were shown to have been sufficiently preserved. 46
The Court's Ruling
The Court grants the appeal.
To sustain a conviction for the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the necessary elements are: (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. It is essential that a transaction or sale be proved to have actually taken place coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of the corpus delicti. The corpus delicti in cases involving dangerous drugs is the dangerous drug itself and its offer as evidence. 47
In the prosecution of drug cases, the procedural safeguards embodied in Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, are material, as their compliance affects the corpus delicti which is the dangerous drug itself, and warrants the identity and integrity of the substances and other evidence that are seized by the apprehending officers. 48 The State must see to it that the custody of the seized drug subject of the illegal sale or of the illegal possession was safeguarded from the moment of confiscation until the moment of presentation in court by documenting the stages of such custody as to establish the chain of custody, whose objective is to remove unnecessary doubts about the identity of the incriminating evidence. 49
Notably, Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was amended by R.A. No. 10640, 50 which became effective on August 7, 2014. Since the alleged offense was committed on May 5, 2016, or after its effectivity, the provisions of R.A. No. 10640 shall apply. Sec. 21 reads:
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[.] 51
In Tañamor v. People, 52 this Court held that "[t]he requirement of conducting inventory and taking of photographs immediately after seizure and confiscation necessarily means that the required witnesses must also be present during the seizure and confiscation. The presence of third-party witnesses is not an empty formality in the conduct of buy-bust operations. It is not a mere rubber stamp to validate the actions taken and self-serving assurances proffered by law enforcement officers. Far from a passive gesture, the attendance of third-party witnesses ensures the identity, origin and integrity of the items seized. 53
In the case at bar, the Court finds that the procedure laid down by Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, was not complied with. The required insulating witnesses were not present during the confiscation but were merely "summoned" belatedly, after the process they were supposed to insulate.
This observation was apparent from the testimony of SPO2 Osurman that it was only after accused-appellant's apprehension and seizure of the drugs, that the buy-bust team summoned the required witnesses. 54 The mandatory witnesses were nowhere near the target area or the place of seizure since the buy-bust team had to wait for their arrival before they could conduct the inventory of the seized items. In fact, the team had to wait for the DOJ representative who came from Legazpi City and had to travel to Camalig, Albay, where the buy-bust operation was conducted. 55
Noncompliance with Sec. 21 on requiring the presence of the insulating witnesses is fatal. To restate, the presence of the three (3) witnesses at the time of seizure and confiscation of the drugs must be secured and complied with at the time of the warrantless arrest; such that they are required to be at or near the intended place of the arrest so that they can be ready to witness the inventory and photographing of the confiscated drugs "immediately after seizure and confiscation." 56 The said requirement could have easily been complied with by the buy-bust team considering that a buy-bust operation is, by its nature, a planned activity. Verily, a buy-bust team normally has sufficient time before the actual operation to gather and bring with it the said witnesses.
Aside from the absence of the mandatory witnesses during the actual seizure of the seized items, the prosecution also failed to establish the fourth link in the chain of custody which pertains to the turnover and submission of the seized item from the forensic chemist to the court.
It must be noted that the testimony of PSI Pabustan, the forensic chemist, was dispensed with in view of the stipulation by the prosecution and the defense, as indicated in the Pre-Trial Order 57 dated August 7, 2017. The parties stipulated as follows:
1.1 That [PSI] Wilfredo I. Pabustan, Jr. was a forensic chemist of the Philippine National Police, Regional Crime Laboratory Office V, Camp Simeon Ola, Legazpi City on May 5, 2016.
1.2 That on such date, he received a Request for Laboratory Examination dated [May 5, 2016,] marked Exhibits "C" and "D["] together with One hunded (100) piece/s specimen/s marked Exhibits "II", "JJ", "JJ-1", "JJ-2" and "JJ-3 (sic).
1.3 The witness conducted qualitative examination of the specimens.
1.4 He also conducted confirmatory examination of the same specimen.
1.5 He reduced his findings in writing known as Chemistry Report Nos. D-271-2016 and 272-2016 marked Exhibits "A" to "B-1".
1.6 He signed the Chain of Custody Form marked Exhibits "E" and "E-1" and turned over the said items to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Albay.
1.7 After examination, the witness turned over the remaining specimen/s to the evidence custodian, SPO1 Maribel Bagato, from whom he retrieved the same specimen/s pursuant to the Subpoena Duces Tecum issued by Prosecutor Jenifer B. Balleras-Bagay; and turned over to her preparatory to the preliminary conference.
1.8 That the witness does not know the provenance of the specimen/s he examined. 58
In People v. Ubungen, 59 the Court ruled that —
[I]n case of a stipulation by the parties to dispense with the attendance and testimony of the forensic chemist, it should be stipulated that the forensic chemist would have testified that he took the precautionary steps required in order to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item, thus: (1) that the forensic chemist received the seized article as marked, properly sealed, and intact; (2) that he resealed it after examination of the content; and (3) that he placed his own marking on the same to ensure that it could not be tampered pending trial. 60
The stipulations made by the prosecution and the defense herein failed to comply with the aforesaid conditions. The parties merely resorted to a general stipulation on the forensic chemist's competence and the existence of the chemistry reports. Regrettably, the records are wanting of any detail regarding the condition of the seized items when they were received by PSI Pabustan from SPO2 Osurman. Moreover, the said stipulation failed to indicate whether PSI Pabustan resealed the subject items after examination, and if he placed his own markings thereon to safeguard the items against tampering.
Moreover, it was established that after the conduct of the chemical analysis, PSI Pabustan delivered the same to SPO1 Bagato. However, no one testified on how the specimens were handled thereafter. SPO1 Bagato did not testify nor was there any stipulation or testimony that could establish the condition of the specimens when they were received and how they were handled by SPO1 Bagato in the interim — from the time they were turned over by PSI Pabustan up to their presentation in court. Since there was no showing that precautions had been taken to ensure that there was no change in the condition of the specimens and that there had been no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession thereof, the Court cannot certainly conclude that the integrity of the corpus delicti had been preserved.
The procedure enshrined in Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 is a matter of substantive law, and cannot be brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality; or, worse, ignored as an impediment to the conviction of illegal drug suspects. 61 Accordingly, the Court finds that there has been an unjustified breach of procedure and, hence, the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti had been compromised. There is, thus, reasonable doubt on the guilt of accused-appellant for the crime charged. Therefore, accused-appellant must be acquitted.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The June 19, 2020 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10655 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE for failure of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of accused-appellant Ryan Moyo y Sarampote. He is hereby ACQUITTED of the charge of illegal sale of dangerous drugs in Criminal Case No. 14120 and ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from custody, unless he is being held for some other lawful cause. Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, is ORDERED to IMPLEMENT this Resolution and to INFORM this Court of the date of the actual release from confinement of Ryan Moyo y Sarampote within five (5) 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. CA rollo, pp. 135-136.
2.Id. at 115-128; penned by Associate Justice Ruben Reynaldo G. Reyes with Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas-Peralta and Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez, concurring.
3.Id. at 54-63; penned by Judge Frank E. Lobrigo.
4. SECTION 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions. x x x
5. An Act to Further Strengthen the Anti-Drug Campaign of the Government, Amending for the Purpose Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
6. SECTION 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof[.] x x x
7. CA rollo, pp. 116-117.
8.Id.
9.Id.
10.See Records, Folder I, pp. 37-38.
11.Id. at 26.
12.Id. at 24-25.
13. CA rollo, p. 117.
14.Id. at 117-118.
15.Id. at 118.
16.See Records, Folder I, pp. 22-23.
17.Id. at 28-32.
18. CA rollo, p. 118.
19.See Records, Folder I, p. 35.
20.Id. at 56.
21.Id. at 78-79.
22.Id. at 79.
23. CA rollo, p. 118.
24.Id. at 119.
25.Id. at 54-63.
26.Id. at 60.
27.Id.
28.Id. at 60-61.
29.Id. at 61.
30.Id. at 62-63.
31.Id. at 115-128.
32.Id. at 127.
33.Id. at 126.
34.Id. at 127.
35.Id.
36.Id. at 43.
37.Id. at 50.
38.Rollo, pp. 23-24.
39.Id. at 30-32.
40.Id. at 26-27.
41. CA rollo, pp. 37-52.
42.Id. at 43.
43.Id. at 45.
44.Id. at 45-46.
45.Id. at 88-89.
46.Id. at 89-90.
47.People v. Ramos, G.R. No. 243944, March 15, 2021.
48.Tolentino v. People, G.R. No. 227217, February 12, 2020.
49.People v. Nepomuceno, G.R. No. 216062, September 19, 2018.
50.Supra note 5.
51. R.A. No. 9165, Art. II, Sec. 21.
52. G.R. No. 228132, March 11, 2020.
53.Id.; citing People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 238339, August 7, 2019.
54.See TSN, October 10, 2017, p. 9.
55.See TSN, October 24, 2017, p. 11.
56.People v. Leaño, G.R. No. 246461, July 28, 2020, citing People v. Tomawis, 830 Phil. 385, 408-409 (2018).
57. Records, Folder I, pp. 94-99.
58.Id. at 94-95.
59. 836 Phil. 888 (2018).
60.Id. at 901.
61.People v. Baptista, G.R. No. 225783, August 20, 2018.