People v. Mundares y Mandi

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 232458. September 14, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, accused-appellant,vs. VERGILIO MUNDARES y MANDI, plaintiff-appellee.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated September 14, 2021 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 232458 (People of the Philippines v. Vergilio Mundares y Mandi). — Before the Court is an ordinary appeal filed by Vergilio Mundares y Mandi (accused-appellant) assailing the Decision 1 dated February 6, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07887, which affirmed the Decision 2 dated September 30, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court of Tarlac City, Branch 64 (RTC) in Criminal Case No. 16036, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as amended. He was sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).

Factual Antecedents

As narrated by the CA in the assailed Decision, the essential facts of the instant case are as follows:

Accused-appellant was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs), the accusatory portion of which reads:

That on or about January 18, 2009, at around 3:15 in the afternoon, in the City of Tarlac and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law, did then and there, willfully and criminally sell four (4) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride commonly known as "shabu," a dangerous drug, weighing 0.39 gram more or less.

Contrary to law. 3

Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded "not guilty" and vehemently denied the charge filed against him. Thereafter, pre-trial was conducted and trial on the merits ensued.

To prove the charges against accused-appellant, the prosecution presented the testimonies of the following witnesses, namely: Police Officer 3 Rodrigo Catacutan (PO3 Catacutan), PO3 Rolando Reyes (PO3 Reyes), and Police Senior Inspector Jebie Timario (PSI Timario).

Version of the Prosecution

On January 18, 2009, PO3 Catacutan, who was assigned at the Intelligence Section of the Tarlac City Police Station and tasked to conduct surveillance of drug personalities in the area, received a tip from a confidential informant pertaining to drug activities allegedly being carried out by a certain "Jessie Mercado" (Mercado) and accused-appellant at Block 3, Barangay San Nicolas, Tarlac City. 4

On the basis of the information provided, the Intelligence Section, headed by Police Inspector Joselito Nelmida (PI Nelmida), planned a buy-bust operation. In the briefing, PO3 Catacutan was designated as the poseur-buyer, to be assisted by PO3 Reyes and PO2 Rodolfo Villaroman (PO2 Villaroman). PO3 Catacutan then prepared two (2) P500.00-bills bearing serial numbers LG6747769 and J865295 and marked them "RLC-1" and "RLC-2," respectively, as buy-bust money. The buy-bust team then agreed that the pre-arranged signal to signify that the transaction had been consummated would be for PO3 Catacutan to remove his bull cap. 5

PO3 Catacutan, PO3 Reyes, PO2 Villaroman and the informant then proceeded to Barangay San Nicolas. PO3 Catacutan and the informant headed to the house of Mercado, while PO3 Reyes and PO2 Villaroman stationed themselves in a place where they can easily witness the transaction. 6 CAIHTE

After being introduced by the informant, PO3 Catacutan asked accused-appellant if he could buy shabu from Mercado. Accused-appellant told him that he actually had shabu in his possession. PO3 Catacutan then told him that he needed shabu worth One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00). Accused-appellant thereafter took four (4) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets from his pocket, showed it to PO3 Catacutan and said "ito na lang." PO3 Catacutan then handed the marked money to accused-appellant who gave him the plastic sachets in return. Thereafter, PO3 Catacutan removed his bull cap to signal the consummation of the sale. 7

PO3 Reyes and PO2 Villaroman immediately rushed to the scene. When accused-appellant saw them approaching, he attempted to escape, but PO3 Catacutan was able to hold him just in time. PO3 Reyes then handcuffed accused-appellant and conducted a body search on him. PO3 Reyes recovered the marked money from the left pocket of accused-appellant. Subsequently, PO3 Catacutan read him his constitutional rights. As the number of people in the area began to increase, the police officers decided to proceed to the police station. From the time of arrest up until their arrival thereat, the seized plastic sachets remained in the possession of PO3 Catacutan. 8

At the police station, PO3 Catacutan marked the seized items while PO3 Sonny Soriaga prepared the request for laboratory examination which was then brought by PO3 Catacutan along with the seized items to the crime laboratory, and handed over to PSI Timario. 9

Upon receipt, PSI Timario conducted an examination of the seized items which yielded positive results for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. 10

Version of the Defense

The defense, for its part, presented accused-appellant as its sole witness. He testified that on January 18, 2009, at around 2:30 in the afternoon, accused-appellant, who was a vendor, was waiting for a bus headed to Dau when all of a sudden, an unidentified male and female approached him and inquired about Mercado. He informed them that he had not seen Mercado. Shortly thereafter, accused-appellant saw the male person use a mobile phone and after a while, several policemen arrived and instructed him to bend over. His hands were then handcuffed and the policemen started asking questions about Mercado despite his insistence that he did not know anything. Accused-appellant was then boarded inside a red car, together with the two persons who talked to him prior to the arrival of the policemen. He was brought to the police station where they questioned and detained him. A month later, he was brought to the Provincial Jail of Tarlac. 11

RTC Ruling

After trial on the merits, the RTC convicted accused-appellant of the crime charged in its Decision dated September 30, 2015, the fallo of which reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this Court finds the accused VERGILIO MUNDARES y Mandi alias "VER" GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged (Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs) and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment. Likewise, he is ordered to pay a fine of P500,000.00.

The Branch Clerk of Court is hereby directed to immediately transmit to the PDEA the subject item for proper disposal.

SO ORDERED. 12

In sum, the RTC ruled that based on the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the chain of custody was sufficiently established and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized have been preserved. It did not give credence to accused-appellant's defense of denial and illegal arrest. According to the RTC, the testimony of accused-appellant, being uncorroborated and without proof of improper motive on the part of the police officers, deserves scant consideration and cannot prevail against the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties accorded the police officers. 13

On appeal, the CA affirmed the findings of the RTC and explained that the failure of the police officers to strictly comply with the rules on chain of custody is not fatal and do not render inadmissible the evidence adduced against accused-appellant. The CA, likewise, affirmed the penalty imposed by the trial court, viz.:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The assailed disposition of the RTC is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED. 14

Hence, the instant appeal.

The Issue

Whether or not the CA erred in when it affirmed the conviction of accused-appellant for illegal sale of dangerous drugs despite the patent irregularities in the conduct of the buy-bust operation and the failure of the prosecution to establish the identity and integrity of the subject contraband.

The Ruling of the Court

The appeal is meritorious. DETACa

Accused-appellant was charged with the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, defined and penalized under Section 5, Article II, of R.A. No. 9165.

In order to sustain a conviction for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, the prosecution must first establish the following elements, beyond reasonable doubt: first, the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and its consideration; and second, the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 15

To elucidate on the foregoing elements, the Court has said that in prosecutions for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, what is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence. 16 Once the sale is consummated and the accused is adequately apprised of his/her constitutional rights, Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 comes into play as it outlines the procedure to be followed by the apprehending team in the handling and custody of the subject contraband which, depending on whether it is lawfully and properly done, could affect the probative value of the evidence presented.

It is settled that the State does not establish the corpus delicti when the prohibited substance subject of the prosecution is missing or when substantial gaps in the chain of custody of the prohibited substance raise grave doubts about the authenticity of the prohibited substance presented as evidence in court. 17 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. 18

For this purpose, R.A. No. 9165 prescribes the manner of authenticating real evidence in drugs cases. 19 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, 20 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. 21

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. 22

Serving as the statutory basis for the chain of custody rule, Section 21 of R.A. No. 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.:

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: 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[.] 23

In order to secure a conviction, each link that comprise the chain of custody must be proved with the same degree of certitude as the commission of the crime itself. Jurisprudence 24 has been instructive in illustrating the links in the chain that need to be established, to wit:

First, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer;

Second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer;

Third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and

Fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court. 25

It is worthy to emphasize that each link in the chain of custody have specific requirements that must not be ignored. In the case of marking, which is deemed the starting point in the custodial link, it is necessary that it be done "immediately after seizure." Marking should be made at the place where the drugs were seized and/or accused was arrested and not elsewhere unless the circumstances at that time made it impossible for the police officers to strictly comply with the rule on venue, e.g., threat of assault or retaliation. aDSIHc

Accused-appellant continues to rely on the vital gaps in the chain of custody to challenge the decisions rendered by the lower courts. In his Brief, 26 he points to two circumstances that warrant the reversal of his conviction: first, the apprehending team's failure to immediately mark the confiscated drugs at the place of arrest; and, second, the absence of the required witnesses during the conduct of the inventory. According to him, the requirements found in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 should not be treated as mere statements of duties or job description, but a statement of procedure which, if not followed with sufficient justification, warrant a judgment of acquittal. 27

Anent his arguments, the RTC ruled that although no photographs were taken and no confiscation receipt was shown to establish that inventory was made in the presence of the mandatory witnesses, accused-appellant could still be held liable for illegal sale of shabu, as the prosecution was able to demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value of the contraband seized have been preserved. 28 In adopting the findings of the trial court, the CA, citing People v. Montevirgen29 and People v. Cerdon, 30 held that as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved, the failure of the apprehending team to strictly comply with the rules governing the chain of custody will not ipso facto render inadmissible in evidence the items seized and will not substantially affect accused-appellant's criminal liability.

Juxtaposing accused-appellant's arguments with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, 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 photographed and physically inventoried the same in the presence of accused-appellant, or his representative or counsel, a representative from the media, a representative from the DOJ, and any elected public official. 31 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. 32

Expounding on this requirement, the Court acquitted the accused in People v. Lim33 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. It was held that it is mandatory to secure their attendance 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. 34

Here, none of the three required witnesses was present during the marking and inventory stage. The arresting officers likewise failed to allege and prove that earnest efforts were made to secure the attendance of these witnesses. To reiterate, the Information 35 states that the sale transaction transpired at around 3:15 in the afternoon. From the timeline alone, it can be logically inferred that the apprehending team had ample time to prepare, contact, and secure the attendance of the key witnesses had they really wanted to.

The several circumstances likewise point to the conclusion that the apprehending team intentionally deviated from the required procedure. First, the prosecution witnesses testified that they have been conducting surveillance in the area and were targeting a certain "Jessie Mercado" when they stumbled upon the name of accused-appellant who, allegedly, was the "runner" of the former. What is more, PO3 Catacutan testified that Jessie Mercado, their actual target, was listed as a drug personality regularly operating in Barangay San Nicolas. 36Second, PO3 Reyes, a witness for the prosecution and member of the buy-bust team, testified that even though he was aware of the requirements found in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, he personally did not know whether or not the apprehending team attempted to contact any or all the witnesses prior to the operation as there was no order from their superior officers. 37Third, the apprehending team failed to present evidence to show that there was an actual commotion or immediate danger which threatened their safety or prevented them from marking the contraband at the place of arrest. Without the element of threat or danger, an increasing number of people or bystanders in the area is insufficient to justify deviation from the required procedure, i.e., marking the confiscated drugs at the place of arrest.

In People v. Lim, 38 the Court reiterated that testimonies of the prosecution witnesses must establish in detail that earnest effort to coordinate with and secure the presence of the required witnesses were made. In addition, it pointed out that given the increasing number of poorly built-up drug-related cases in the courts' docket, Section 1 (A.1.10) of the Chain of Custody Implementing Rules and Regulations should be enforced as a mandatory policy. The pertinent portions of the Decision read: ETHIDa

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, Section 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 Sections 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. If there is no justification or explanation expressly declared in the sworn statements or affidavits, the investigating fiscal must not immediately file the case before the court. Instead, he or she must refer the case for further preliminary investigation in order to determine the (non) existence of probable cause.

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. 39

Simply put, the prosecution cannot merely invoke the saving clause found in Section 21 — that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items have been preserved — without first 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 v. Umipang40 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. 41

To the Court's mind, the lower courts relied so much on the narration of the prosecution witnesses that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved without taking into account the weight of these unjustified lapses. Contrary to the stance taken by the RTC and the CA, unjustified non-compliance with the requirements found in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is fatal to the prosecution's 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 and warrants a judgment of acquittal. cSEDTC

Finally, it cannot be gainsaid that it is mandated by no less than the Constitution 42 that an accused in a criminal case shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. In People v. Hilario, 43 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. 44

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated February 6, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07887, which affirmed the Decision dated September 30, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court of Tarlac City, Branch 64 in Criminal Case No. 16036, finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Vergilio Mundares y Mandi 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 an entry of final judgment be issued immediately.

Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections for immediate implementation. The Director General is DIRECTED to REPORT to this Court, within five days from receipt of this Resolution, the action he/she has taken. Let copies be likewise FURNISHED to the Police General of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for their information.

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 Normandie B. Pizarro (retired), with Associate Justices Samuel H. Gaerlan (now a member of this Court) and Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla (retired), concurring; rollo, pp. 2-11.

2. CA rollo, pp. 45-56.

3.Id. at 34.

4.Rollo, p. 4.

5.Id.

6.Id.

7.Id. at 4-5.

8.Id. at 5.

9.Id.

10.Id. at 5-6.

11.Id. at 6.

12. CA rollo, p. 56.

13.Id.

14.Rollo, p. 11.

15.People v. Oliva, G.R. No. 234156, January 7, 2019.

16.People v. Lazaro, Jr., 619 Phil. 235, 249 (2009).

17.People v. Relato, 679 Phil. 268, 277 (2012).

18.People v. Oliva, supra note 15.

19.People v. Romy Lim y Miranda, G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.

20.Supra.

21.Id. (Emphasis omitted)

22. Dangerous Drug Board Regulation No. 1, s. 2002, Sec. 1 (b).

23. R.A. No. 9165, Art. II, Sec. 21.

24.People v. Remigio, 700 Phil. 452 (2012).

25.Id. at 468.

26. CA rollo, pp. 33-43.

27.Id. at 40.

28.Id. at 55.

29. 723 Phil. 534, 544 (2013).

30. 740 Phil. 685, 696 (2014).

31.People v. Coronel, 829 Phil. 645, 656 (2018).

32.People v. Lim, supra note 19.

33.Supra.

34.Id.

35.Rollo, p. 3.

36. CA rollo, p. 50.

37.Id. at 48.

38.Supra note 19.

39.Id.

40. 686 Phil. 1024 (2012).

41.Id. at 1053-1054. (Citations omitted)

42. Art. III, Sec. 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.

43. 823 Phil. 580 (2018).

44.Id. at 605.