People v. Ngayawon

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 252566. April 5, 2022.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.SERRANO TAMAYAO NGAYAWON, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 5, 2022which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 252566 (People of the Philippines v. Serrano Tamayao Ngayawon). — This is an ordinary appeal under Rule 122 of the Rules of Court, as amended, seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision 1 dated October 15, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10624. The said issuance affirmed the January 4, 2018 Decision 2 issued by Branch 14 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lagawe, Ifugao in Criminal Case No. 2281 which, in turn, found accused-appellant Serrano Tamayao Ngayawon (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

Antecedents

Accused-appellant and one Bony Angayon Dulnuan (Dulnuan) were indicted of the crime charged by virtue of an Information dated November 5, 2014, the accusatory portion of which reads as follows:

That on or about the afternoon of November 3, 2014, along the national road at Poblacion West, Lamut, Ifugao, hence, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused conspiring, confederating and mutually aiding one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, without being authorized by law, transport, on board an unregistered motorcycle, Methampethamine [sic] Hydrochloride commonly known as "shabu" contained in 20 heat sealed sachets.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 3

Upon arraignment, accused-appellant, assisted by counsel, entered a plea of Not Guilty. 4 Accordingly, pre-trial ensued, followed by trial on the merits. ICHDca

Version of the Prosecution

The evidence for the prosecution established that in the afternoon of November 3, 2014, at around 3:00 p.m., Police Senior Inspector (PSI) Edgar Tapo (PSI Tapo), Senior Police Officer (SPO) 3 Ricardo Bengwic, SPO1 Jose Abluyan, Jr. (SPO1 Abluyan), Police Officer (PO) 3 Anthony Bunoan, and PO2 Lindon Vicente Dulawan (PO2 Dulawan), all officers of the Philippine National Police (PNP), along with Amado Honnag (Honnag) of the Land Transportation Office, were conducting a routine checkpoint which was located in front of the Livelihood Center along the national highway of Lamut, Ifugao. 5 The purpose of said operation was to ensure the public's compliance with the provisions of R.A. No. 4136, otherwise known as the Land Transportation and Traffic Code. 6

In the course of manning said checkpoint, SPO1 Abluyan and Honnag flagged down a blue TMX Honda motorcycle coming from Bliss, Mabatobato, Lamut, Ifugao which did not have a license plate. Said motorcycle was carrying Dulnuan and accused-appellant who were riding in tandem. The driver of the motorcycle, Dulnuan, was asked to present his driver's license but was not able to do so because he had none. Dulnuan was only able to present the expired original receipt and certificate of registration of the motorcycle. 7

Accused-appellant, being the backrider of the motorcycle, alighted therefrom and pulled a taluwan or betel nut container from his pocket. Suddenly, seven plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance fell down from accused-appellant's pocket and onto the cemented pavement. This prompted PSI Tapo to arrest accused-appellant and search his person. PSI Tapo then recovered from accused-appellant 13 more plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance. In total, 20 plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance were recovered from accused-appellant. 8

PO2 Dulawan then went to Dulnuan and saw the latter holding a Fortune cigarette box, thereby instructing the latter to open the same. PO2 Dulawan was able to seize from Dulnuan 13 empty heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets, a blue lighter, and a small cellophane containing silver foils. 9

Accordingly, Dulnuan and accused-appellant were arrested by the police officers. PSI Tapo apprised them of their constitutional rights in the English language and, afterwards, in the Ilocano dialect. 10 The two were then brought to the Lamut Police Station. 11

At the police station, PSI Tapo conducted a marking and inventory of the seized items in the presence of Barangay Captain Beatriz B. Panit, Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Marvin G. Ngayawan, religious sector representative Pastor Roxas G. Pagaddut, and media representative Janine Lynette A. Salonga who, thereafter, all signed the Inventory Receipt. Dulnuan and accused-appellant also witnessed the marking and inventory. PSI Tapo marked the seized items with his initials ELT, the date, and his signature. Photographs of the conduct of the marking and inventory were also taken by the police officers. 12

Afterwards, the seized items, along with Dulnuan and accused-appellant, were brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory at Camp Bado Dangwa, La Trinidad, Benguet. PSI Tapo personally handed the 20 sachets containing white crystalline substance to the forensic chemist of the PNP Crime Laboratory, Police Chief Inspector Alex Diwas Biadang, Jr. (PCI Biadang). 13 TCAScE

Upon receipt of the items, PCI Biadang checked if the markings and the descriptions therein matched those that were listed in the letter-request for laboratory testing. He then conducted a qualitative examination of the contents of each of the 20 plastic sachets which, as reflected in Chemistry Report No. D-124-2014, all yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. Thereafter, PCI Biadang re-sealed the sachets and placed on them his own handwritten markings. He then placed the sachets inside an envelope, placing his signature on the tape that was used to seal the same, and turned it over to the evidence custodian, SPO3 Dennis de los Reyes (SPO3 De los Reyes). 14

Per Chemistry Report Nos. DT-49-2014 and DT-50-2014, 15 the urine samples that were taken from Dulnuan and accused-appellant tested positive for the presence of shabu.

Version of the Defense

Professing innocence, accused-appellant averred that in the morning of November 3, 2014, between 8:00 and 9:00 a.m., he asked Dulnuan to give him a ride to the office of the Ifugao Electric Cooperative, Inc. (IFELCO) for the purpose of paying his electric bill. When they arrived in front of IFELCO's office, PSI Tapo approached and instructed them to follow him to the police station. Dulnuan went with PSI Tapo inside the station, while accused-appellant stayed outside. 16

After a while, PSI Tapo went outside and frisked accused-appellant, instructing the latter to empty his pockets, which he did. Accused-appellant took out from his pocket his wallet, cellphone, and electric bill. PSI Tapo then detained accused-appellant and Dulnuan in a prison cell inside the police station. Urine samples were also taken from them. 17

Accused-appellant denied the allegation that 20 plastic sachets containing shabu were recovered from him. He claimed that PSI Tapo framed him because he was demanding from the latter payment of a debt amounting to P3,000.00. 18

In his testimony, 19 Dulnuan corroborated accused-appellant's claims.

The RTC Ruling

On January 4, 2018, the trial court rendered a Decision 20 convicting accused-appellant of the crime charged. Dulnuan, on the other hand, was acquitted.

The RTC reasoned that because accused-appellant was caught in flagrante delicto, his arrest, along with the confiscation of the 20 plastic sachets containing shabu, were proper. It added that the prosecution was able to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized items from the moment of accused-appellant's arrest until the same were turned over by the forensic chemist to the trial court.

The RTC did not give any premium to accused-appellant's defense of frame-up. According to the trial court, it is not plausible for PSI Tapo to concoct an elaborate scheme to frame accused-appellant of such a serious crime, just for the purpose of evading an alleged P3,000.00 debt.

Ruling in favor of Dulnuan's acquittal, the trial court ratiocinated that the prosecution was not able to establish any conspiracy between him and accused-appellant. Dulnuan was merely holding a cigarette box, the RTC said.

Thus, the RTC disposed as follows:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Serrano Tamayao Ngayawon GUILTY guilty [sic] beyond reasonable doubt for Violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 (The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) as charged and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) Pesos.

For lack of evidence, accused Bony Angayon Dulnuan is found not guilty and is, therefore, acquitted of the crime charged. Any officer of the law having custody of accused Bony Angayon Dulnuan is hereby directed to immediately cause the release of accused unless detained for any other legal cause/s.

Let the twenty (20) plastic sachets of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu) marked in evidence as Exhibits Exhibits [sic] "D" to "D-19" be transmitted to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), Camp Bado Dangwa, La Trinidad, Benguet for proper disposition.

SO ORDERED. 21

Aggrieved, accused-appellant interposed an appeal with the CA.

The CA Ruling

On October 15, 2019, the CA issued the herein assailed Decision 22 affirming accused-appellant's conviction, the decretal part of which states:

ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated 4 January 2018 of the Regional Trial Court, Second Judicial Region, Branch 14, Lagawe, Ifugao in Criminal Case No. 2281 is AFFIRMED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 ITAaHc

The CA ratiocinated that the prosecution was able to prove all of the elements of the crime charged, as well as establish all the links in the chain of custody of the seized items. Accused-appellant's mere denial cannot outweigh the categorical and positive testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution.

Hence, the present recourse.

On November 26, 2019, the CA issued a Minute Resolution 24 giving due course to the Notice of Appeal 25 filed by accused-appellant, thereby ordering the elevation of the records of the instant case to this Court.

In a Resolution 26 dated September 9, 2020, this Court noted the records of the case forwarded by the CA. The parties were then ordered to file their respective supplemental briefs, should they so desire, within 30 days from notice.

On November 25, 2020, appellant, through the Public Attorney's Office, filed a Manifestation 27 stating that he would no longer file a supplemental brief because all of his contentions have been exhaustively ventilated in the Appellant's Brief 28 that he submitted to the CA. On December 17, 2020, the Office of the Solicitor General filed a similar Manifestation 29 on behalf of the People.

In the brief that he filed with the CA, accused-appellant questioned the legality of his arrest. He contended that the inconsistencies in the testimony of PSI Tapo on the circumstances regarding his arrest, as well as the supposed improbable circumstances surrounding the discovery of the sachets of shabu, render as unreasonable the search and seizure effected upon his person.

Accused-appellant likewise assailed the police officers' failure to comply with the chain of custody rule, particularly because the marking and inventory of the seized items were done inside the police station and not at the place of arrest.

The Court now resolves the instant case.

Ruling of the Court

The appeal is bereft of merit.

Accused-appellant can no longer assail

At the outset, it bears noting that accused-appellant never questioned the legality of his warrantless arrest before he was arraigned. Neither did he file a motion to quash the Information charging him with violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.

In People v. Alunday, 30 the Court made the following pronouncement:

The Court has consistently ruled that any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure for the acquisition by the court of jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived. We have also ruled that an accused may be estopped from assailing the illegality of his arrest if he fails to move for the quashing of the information against him before his arraignment. And since the legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused, any defect in the arrest of the accused may be deemed cured when he voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of the trial court. We have also held in a number of cases that the illegal arrest of an accused is not a sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient complaint after a trial free from error; such arrest does not negate the validity of the conviction of the accused.

Herein, accused-appellant went into arraignment and entered a plea of not guilty. Thereafter, he actively participated in his trial. He raised the additional issue of irregularity of his arrest only during his appeal to this Court. He is, therefore, deemed to have waived such alleged defect by submitting himself to the jurisdiction of the court by his counsel-assisted plea during his arraignment; by his actively participating in the trial and by not raising the objection before his arraignment. CHTAIc

It is much too late in the day to complain about the warrantless arrest after a valid information has been filed, the accused arraigned, trial commenced and completed, and a judgment of conviction rendered against him.

Accused-appellant was not even denied due process by virtue of his alleged illegal arrest, because of his voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the trial court, as manifested by the voluntary and counsel-assisted plea he entered during arraignment and by his active participation in the trial thereafter. 31 (Citations omitted)

Indeed, an accused may be estopped from assailing the illegality of his or her arrest if he or she fails to move for the quashing of the Information against him or her before his or her arraignment. 32 And since the legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused, any defect in his or her arrest may be deemed cured when he or she voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial court. 33

Certainly in this case, accused-appellant is deemed to have waived any perceived defect in his arrest and effectively submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the RTC. 34

At any rate, accused-appellant's

An arrest is lawful even in the absence of a warrant: (a) when the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is about to commit an offense in his/her presence; (b) when an offense has in fact been committed and he/she has reasonable ground to believe 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/she is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his/her case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. 35

Here, accused-appellant was arrested under the first mode. He was caught in flagrante delicto transporting shabu.

Jurisprudence holds that an in flagrante delicto arrest requires the confluence of two elements: (a) the person arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he or she has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (b) the overt act was done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. 36

In this case, the police officers who were conducting a routine checkpoint flagged down the motorcycle being driven by Dulnuan because the said motorcycle did not have an attached license plate. Accused-appellant, who was riding in tandem with Dulnuan, unmounted the motorcycle and, without being prompted by the police officers, pulled out a betel nut container from his pocket. Accused-appellant's act inadvertently led to seven plastic sachets of shabu falling from the said pocket and dropping onto the pavement and well within PSI Tapo's plain sight. This prompted PSI Tapo to not only arrest accused-appellant, but also to conduct a body search which, as shown by the records led to the seizure of 13 more plastic sachets containing shabu.

Under the circumstances, the legality of accused-appellant's arrest, as well as the search and seizure that yielded a total of 20 plastic sachets of shabu, have been established by the prosecution.

The prosecution was able to prove

Prescinding from the foregoing, accused-appellant's transgression clearly falls under illegal transportation of dangerous drugs as defined and penalized by Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, viz.: EATCcI

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 (Emphasis ours)

Jurisprudence defines "transport" as "to carry or convey from one place to another." 37 The essential element of the crime in question is the movement of the dangerous drug from one place to another. 38 When the circumstances establish the purpose of an accused to transport and the fact of transportation itself, there should be no question as to the perpetration of the criminal act. 39

In his bid for acquittal, accused-appellant is clutching on the supposed inconsistencies in PSI Tapo's testimony. He points out that PSI Tapo initially claimed in his testimony that 20 plastic sachets of shabu fell from accused-appellant's pocket, before he corrected himself that the number was seven. However, this supposed inconsistency has nothing to do with the elements of the crime charged. It does not change the fact that a total of 20 plastic sachets of shabu were recovered from accused-appellant.

An inconsistency, which has nothing to do with the elements of a crime, is not a ground to reverse a conviction. 40 It is an elementary rule in this jurisdiction that inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses with respect to minor details and collateral matters do not affect the substance of their declaration nor the veracity or weight of their testimony. 41 In fact, these minor inconsistencies enhance the credibility of the witnesses, for they remove any suspicion that their testimonies were contrived or rehearsed. 42 What is important is that the testimonies agree on the essential facts and substantially corroborate a consistent and coherent whole. 43

Based on the testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution, there is no doubt that accused-appellant was caught by the police in flagrante delicto transporting shabu, a prohibited drug. Entrenched in our jurisprudence is the rule that the direct account of law enforcement officers enjoys the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties. 44 Credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they enjoy the presumption of having performed their duties in a regular manner. 45 The evidence on record do not provide any compelling reason to stray from this rule.

The unbroken chain of custody of the

As a general rule, it is essential that the identity of the dangerous drug be established with moral certainty, considering that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime. 46 The only way by which the State could lay the foundation of the corpus delicti is to establish beyond reasonable doubt the illegal sale or illegal possession of the dangerous drug by preserving the identity of the drug offered as evidence against the accused. The State does so only by ensuring that the drug presented in the trial court was the same substance bought from the accused during the buy-bust operation or recovered from his possession at the moment of arrest. 47 Thus, it is of utmost importance that the integrity and identity of the seized drugs must be shown to have been duly preserved. 48

In People v. Jaafar, 49 the Court explained further: DHITCc

Narcotic substances are not readily identifiable. To determine their composition and nature, they must undergo scientific testing and analysis. Narcotic substances are also highly susceptible to alteration, tampering, or contamination. It is imperative, therefore, that the drugs allegedly seized from the accused are the very same objects tested in the laboratory and offered in court as evidence. The chain of custody, as a method of authentication, ensures that unnecessary doubts involving the identity of seized drugs are removed. 50 (Citations omitted)

Since the Information alleges that the crime was committed by accused-appellant on November 3, 2014, the rules on chain of custody are governed by R.A. No. 10640 which amended R.A. No. 9165.

Section 1 of R.A. No. 10640 states:

SECTION 1. Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," is hereby amended to read as follows:

SEC. 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 dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items 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, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media 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 finally, That noncompliance of 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 and custody over said items.

xxx xxx xxx

(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued immediately upon the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of 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 immediately upon completion of the said examination and certification. (Emphasis ours)

The rules mandate that the following links should be established in the chain of custody of the confiscated items: 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 from the forensic chemist to the court. 51

The Court Finds that the prosecution was able to prove the unbroken chain in the custody of the 20 plastic sachets of shabu that were seized from accused-appellant. cEaSHC

With regard to the first and second links, the law requires that the said inventory and photography be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his/her representative or counsel, as well as an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service OR the media. 52 The records show that upon the arrest of Dulnuan and accused-appellant and the confiscation of the plastic sachets of shabu, PSI Tapo immediately brought them to the Lamut Police Station. The seized items were then marked, photographed and inventoried in the presence of Dulnuan, accused-appellant, Barangay Captain Beatriz B. Panit (an elected public official), Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Marvin G. Ngayawan (a representative of the National Prosecution Service), and media representative Janine Lynette A. Salonga. PSI Tapo maintained custody of the seized items from the moment they were seized, as well as during the conduct of the marking and inventory.

Accused-appellant's argument that the chain was broken because the marking and inventory were not done immediately at the place of arrest, is unavailing. Section 21 (1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, explicitly states that the inventory of confiscated items may be made "at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures." As We have already elaborated, the instant case involves a warrantless arrest and a search incidental thereto.

Anent the third and fourth links, it is settled that in drug related cases, "it is of paramount necessity that the forensic chemist testifies on the details pertaining to the handling and analysis of the dangerous drug submitted for examination, i.e., when and from whom the dangerous drug was received; what identifying labels or other things accompanied it; description of the specimen; and the container it was in. Further, the forensic chemist must also identify the name and method of analysis used in determining the chemical composition of the subject specimen. 53

It has been established in the records that PSI Tapo personally delivered the seized items to the forensic chemist, PCI Biadang 54 who, in turn, testified that he received from PSI Tapo on November 3, 2014 the seized items which were contained in a sealed envelope; that he checked if the markings and the descriptions therein matched those that were listed in the letter-request for laboratory testing, confirming that the specimen matched the descriptions thereto; that he conducted a qualitative method of examination; that he re-sealed the sachets and placed on them his own handwritten markings; that he placed the sachets inside the envelope where they were originally contained, placing his signature on the tape that was used to seal the same; and that he turned it over to SPO3 De los Reyes, the evidence custodian. 55

In fine, the prosecution was able to prove the unbroken chain in the custody of the seized items. There is no doubt that the plastic sachets of shabu which were presented by the prosecution before the court a quo were the same plastic sachets of shabu that were seized from accused-appellant.

Accused-appellant's defenses of denial

Accused-appellant's defenses of denial and frame-up are unconvincing.

Denial is an intrinsically weak defense 56 and if uncorroborated regresses to blatant impotence. 57 A categorical and consistent positive identification, absent any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying thereon, prevails over the defenses of denial and alibi, which if not substantiated by clear and convincing proof constitute self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law. 58 Simply put, accused-appellant's denial cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses. 59

On the other hand, the defense of frame-up is often put up in drugs cases in order to cast doubt on the credibility of police officers. 60 It is viewed with disfavor since it can easily be fabricated and is a common ploy in prosecution for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. 61 In order for the defense of frame-up to prosper, appellants had the burden to prove the same with strong and convincing evidence, and defeat the presumption that the police officers properly performed their duties. 62 As found by the RTC and the CA, no such evidence were ever adduced by accused-appellant.

As to the penalties

Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 penalizes the crime of illegal transportation of dangerous drugs with the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00. The proper penalties were, therefore, imposed against accused-appellant.

It is a well-settled rule that findings of the trial court, which are factual in nature and which involve the credibility of witnesses, are accorded respect when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts or speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. 63 This rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals, 64 as in this case.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Decision dated October 15, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10624 finding accused-appellant Serrano Tamayao Ngayawon GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for the crime charged in Criminal Case No. 2281 for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 is AFFIRMED. DcHSEa

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. Rollo, pp. 3-22. Penned by Associate Justice Louis P. Acosta with Associate Justices Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela and Ma. Luisa Quijano Padilla concurring.

2. CA rollo, pp. 46-64. Rendered by Presiding Judge Romeo U. Habbiling.

3. Id. at 46.

4. Id.

5. Rollo, p. 4.

6. CA rollo, p. 51.

7. Rollo, p. 4.

8. Id. at 4-5.

9. Id. at 5.

10. CA rollo, p. 49.

11. Rollo, p. 5.

12. Id. at 5-6.

13. Id. at 6.

14. CA rollo, p. 47.

15. Rollo, p. 6.

16. CA rollo, pp. 56-57.

17. Id. at 57.

18. Id. at 58.

19. TSN, August 2, 2017, pp. 2-15.

20. CA rollo, pp. 46-64.

21. Id. at 63-64.

22. Rollo, pp. 3-22.

23. Id. at 22.

24. CA rollo, p. 127.

25. Id. at 124-126.

26. Rollo, pp. 28-29.

27. Id. at 33-37.

28. CA rollo, pp. 27-45.

29. Rollo, pp. 38-44.

30. 586 Phil. 120 (2008).

31. Id. at 133-134.

332. People v. Tumaneng, 347 Phil. 56, 74-75 (1997).

33. People v. Vallejo, 461 Phil. 672, 686 (2003).

34. Miclat, Jr. v. People, 672 Phil. 191, 203 (2011).

35. People v. Bolasa, 378 Phil. 1073, 1079 (1999).

36. Porteria v. People, G.R. No. 233777, March 20, 2019.

37. People v. Peñaflorida, Jr., 574 Phil. 269, 284 (2008).

38. San Juan v. People, 664 Phil. 547, 560 (2011).

39. People v. Asislo, 778 Phil. 509, 523 (2016).

40. People v. Gonzales, Jr., 781 Phil. 149, 156 (2016).

41. Calma v. People, 820 Phil. 858, 866 (2017).

42. People v. Albarido, 420 Phil. 235, 245 (2001).

43. People v. Escote, 475 Phil. 268, 276 (2004).

44. People v. Cabiles, 810 Phil. 969, 976 (2017).

45. People v. Alejandro, 731 Phil. 662, 678 (2014).

46. People v. De Dios, G.R. No. 243664, January 22, 2020.

47. People v. Nepomuceno, 840 Phil. 356, 364 (2018).

48. People v. Ubungen, 836 Phil. 888, 897 (2018).

49. 803 Phil. 582 (2017).

50. Id. at 591.

51. People v. Nandi, 639 Phil. 134, 144-145 (2010).

52. People v. Paming, G.R. No. 241091, January 14, 2019.

53. People v. Villalon, Jr., G.R. No. 249412, March 5, 2021.

54. Rollo, p. 6.

55. CA rollo, p. 47.

56. People v. Pulgo, 813 Phil. 205, 220 (2017).

57. People v. Libre, 792 Phil. 12, 31 (2016).

58. People v. Villamor, 780 Phil. 817, 825 (2016).

59. People v. Saludes, 451 Phil. 719, 727 (2003).

60. People v. Collado, 711 Phil. 313, 327 (2013).

61. People v. Marcelo, 741 Phil. 412, 431 (2014).

62. People v. Buesa, G.R. No. 237850, September 16, 2020.

63. People v. Gaspar, 669 Phil. 122, 134 (2011).

64. Id.