People v. Oliva y Tumangan

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 246936. October 13, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.JASON OLIVA y TUMANGAN @ "JASON", accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 13, 2021which reads as follows: HTcADC

"G.R. No. 246936 (People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, v. Jason Oliva y Tumangan @ "Jason," accused-appellant).

This is an Appeal 1 from the September 11, 2018 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09120. The CA affirmed with modification the June 22, 2016 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 64 (RTC), which found Jason Oliva y Tumangan @ "Jason" (accused-appellant) guilty of violating Sections 5 4 and 11, 5 Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, 6 in Criminal Case Nos. 15-1493 and 15-1494.

Antecedents

Accused-appellant was charged with violation of Secs. 5 and 11, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 in Criminal Case Nos. 15-1493 and 15-1494 in two (2) separate Informations both dated April 27, 2015. The accusatory portions of the said informations read:

Criminal Case No. 15-1493Section 5

On the 24th day of April 2015, in the [C]ity of Makati, the Philippines, accused, without the necessary license or prescription, and without being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, distribute and give away Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) weighing zero point twelve (0.12) gram, a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 7

Criminal Case No. 15-1494Section 11

On the 24th day of April 2015, in the [C]ity of Makati, the Philippines, accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess or otherwise use any dangerous drug and without the corresponding prescription, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have in his possession direct custody, and control Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) weighing a total of zero point ten (0.10) gram, which is a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 8

During arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. Trial ensued thereafter.

Version of the Prosecution

On April 24, 2015, Police Superintendent Mario Ignacio (P/Supt. Ignacio) tasked Police Officer I Marcos Berog (PO1 Berog) and other police officers, then assigned as operatives of the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Group (SAID-SOTG), to conduct an anti-narcotics operation at Barangay Guadalupe Viejo, Makati City. The target of the operation was herein accused-appellant who was suspected to be selling dangerous drugs at Barangay Guadalupe Viejo and other nearby barangays. A briefing was undertaken for the conduct of an operation by team leader Police Inspector Crisanto Racoma wherein PO1 Berog was designated as the poseur-buyer. PO1 Berog was given a marked P500.00 bill. 9

Police Officer III Mike Lester Pacis (PO3 Pacis), on the other hand, was designated as PO1 Berog's immediate backup while the rest of the team served as perimeter security. Police Officer II Sherwin Limbauan coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) by sending therein a coordination form with control number 10001-042015-0262. After coordination with the PDEA, PO1 Berog contacted their informant to determine the exact location of accused-appellant. After a few hours of waiting, they learned that accused-appellant, or alias Jason, was at Camia Street, Barangay Guadalupe Viejo, Makati City. They met with the informant near Rockwell Powerplant Mall. 10

PO1 Berog, together with the informant and the rest of the team, then proceeded to the place where accused-appellant frequently plied his trade. Upon the team's arrival at Camia Street corner J.P. Rizal Street, PO1 Berog noticed a tall, thin male standing by the row of pedicabs. The informant then told him that the said man was accused-appellant. PO1 Berog and the informant approached accused-appellant. The informant then introduced PO1 Berog to accused-appellant as a friend in need of shabu. Accused-appellant asked him how much he was going to buy, to which he replied, P500.00 worth, for personal use. PO1 Berog handed the marked money to accused-appellant, who put it in his left pocket. Accused-appellant then told him to follow him as there were a lot of people in the area. They distanced themselves from the crowd and accused-appellant then took out from his right front pocket three (3) plastic sachets containing a white crystalline substance suspected to be shabu. Accused-appellant asked him to pick one from the three sachets. After picking, accused-appellant returned the rest of the sachets in his right front pocket while PO1 Berog himself pocketed the sachet he had bought. 11

The transaction having been consummated, PO1 Berog executed the pre-arranged signal by scratching his forehead. PO3 Pacis arrived and assisted him in the arrest of accused-appellant. Procedural body search resulted in the recovery of the marked P500.00 bill and two (2) other sachets of suspected shabu. PO3 Pacis informed accused-appellant of his constitutional rights. They then called for an elected official to witness the inventory. The team decided to proceed to the barangay hall of Guadalupe Viejo for the inventory. The inventory receipt was presented to the investigator, Police Officer III Voltaire Esguerra (PO3 Esguerra), in order to facilitate the necessary requests needed for the examination of the seized items to the Scene of the Crime Operatives (SOCO) was also prepared to have the items received by the Crime Laboratory. He then delivered the evidence to the Southern Police District (SPD) Crime Laboratory where it was received by the forensic chemist Police Senior Inspector Rendielyn Sahagun (PSI Sahagun), who, after the conduct of the qualitative examination on the specimens received, executed Chemistry Report No. D-445-15 indicating that the seized items yielded positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. 12

Version of the Defense

For his part, accused-appellant denied the charges against him. He averred that on April 24, 2015, at around 10:45 p.m., he was driving his pedicab when a vehicle suddenly stopped in front of him. Three (3) armed men in civilian attire alighted from the vehicle and told him not to run. They pulled him off the pedicab and boarded him on a van. He was taken to the SAID-SOTG office where he was forcibly frisked. After taking his cellular phone and money he was taken to the SOCO and then to the barangay hall of Guadalupe Viejo. They brought out a plastic sachet and a P500.00 bill. He was told to point to the plastic sachet and money. Pictures were taken of him together with the kagawad, bantay bayan, and the persons who arrested him. Afterwards, he was taken to the Criminal Investigation Division where he was detained. 13

The RTC Ruling

In its June 22, 2016 Decision, 14 the RTC found accused-appellant guilty of violations of Secs. 5 and 11, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

1. In Criminal Case No. 15-1493, finding the accused Jason Oliva [y] Tumangan, GUILTY of the charge for violation of Section 5, Article II of [R.A. No.] 9165 and sentencing him to life imprisonment and to a fine of FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS ([P]400,000.00) without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; and

2. In Criminal Case No. 15-1494, finding the accused Jason Oliva [y] Tumangan, GUILTY of the charge for violation of Section 11, Article IIof [R.A. No.] 9165 and sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years of imprisonment and to pay a fine of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS ([P]300,000.00) without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

SO ORDERED. 15

The RTC held that all the elements of the crimes as charged were sufficiently established. The evidence of the prosecution clearly shows that the sale of the dangerous drugs actually took place; that the subject shabu of the charge was bought from accused-appellant; and that the same shabu was later identified in the trial court. It was likewise established that accused-appellant was in possession of two more sachets of shabu at the time of his arrest. 16

Further, the RTC held that there was substantial compliance with the requirements of R.A. No. 9165 on the proper chain of custody of dangerous drugs. 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 constitutes compliance with the chain of custody rule. The identity and integrity of the seized drugs were preserved. The RTC also underscored that accused-appellant's defense of denial was unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence; hence, it deserved no credence at all. 17

Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed to the CA.

CA Ruling

In its September 11, 2018 Decision, 18 the CA affirmed with modification as to the fine, the ruling of the RTC, viz.:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated June 22, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 64, Makati City, in Criminal Case Nos. 15-1493 and 15-1494, is MODIFIED by INCREASING the fine in Criminal Case No. 15-1493 to Five Hundred Thousand Pesos ([P]500,000.00). The rest of the Decision not modified accordingly, STANDS.

SO ORDERED.19

The CA held that the buy-bust team substantially complied with the requirements of Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 on marking, photography, and inventory of the seized dangerous drugs. It underscored that the inventory receipt confirms compliance with the rules, as it contains the signatures of the arresting officer, PO1 Berog, as witnessed by the local elected official Barangay Kagawad Hein Angeles. Moreover, the integrity of the seized drugs was preserved. 20 The totality of the prosecution's evidence shows that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items had been preserved.

Hence, this Appeal. 21

Issue

Accused-appellant imputes the following error in support of his appeal:

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIMES CHARGED DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO ESTABLISH AN UNBROKEN CHAIN OF CUSTODY AND TO SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165 AS AMENDED BY REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10640. 22

In his Appellant's Brief 23 filed before the CA, accused-appellant argues that there was failure to observe the procedure provided for under Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165. 24 The seized items were not immediately marked at the place of the arrest and done only upon the arrival of the buy-bust team at the barangay hall of Guadalupe Viejo. 25 There was noncompliance with the required presence of representatives from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the media during the physical inventory and photographing of the seized evidence. 26 Accused-appellant maintains that the apprehending officers did not exert any genuine and sufficient effort to comply with the mandate of Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165. 27 He contends that the police officers failed to justify their failure to comply with the requirements under R.A. No. 9165. Finally, accused-appellant argues that there were breaks in every link in the chain of custody. 28

On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), in its Appellee's Brief 29 filed before the CA, urges this Court to affirm accused-appellant's conviction. The OSG maintains that the prosecution duly established the elements of the offenses charged. There was an unbroken chain of custody from PO1 Berog's confiscation of the plastic sachets from accused-appellant and marking of the same after arrest, to the turnover of the said contraband to the police investigator, until its delivery to the crime laboratory for examination. Accordingly, the integrity and identity of the seized drug were sufficiently preserved.

The Court's Ruling

The Court finds the appeal meritorious.

It is a well-established rule that an appeal in criminal cases throws the whole case open for review. Consequently, the appellate court has the competence to examine records, to revise the judgment appealed from, to increase the penalty, and to cite the proper provision of the penal law. 30 After careful examination, this Court finds that the guilt of accused-appellant was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

To sustain a conviction for the offense of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must prove all the necessary elements therein. Moreover, it is essential that the 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.

Here, the factual findings of the lower courts as to the existence of the sale of 0.12 gram of shabu, as well as the exchange of P500.00 marked money between poseur-buyer PO1 Berog and accused-appellant is undeniable. Also, that after accused-appellant's apprehension, two more sachets of shabu weighing a total of 0.10 gram were found in his possession. This Court finds no reason to disturb these findings. There is no reason to question the credibility of the witnesses presented by the prosecution insofar as the truth of the transaction is concerned.

Nonetheless, this Court finds that the procedure laid down by Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, was not complied with. The said procedural safeguard regarding the chain of custody rule provides:

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 persons 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 [with] these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items.

To emphasize, for both illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs, it is essential that the identity of the seized drug be established with moral certainty. It must be proven with exactitude that the substance bought during the buy-bust operation is exactly the same substance offered in evidence before the court. This requirement is known as the chain of custody rule under R.A. No. 9165 created to safeguard doubts concerning the identity of the seized drugs. 31 Law enforcers should not trifle with the legal requirement to ensure integrity in the chain of custody of seized dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia. This is especially true when only a minuscule amount of dangerous drugs is alleged to have been taken from the accused, 32 such as in this case.

In People v. Ramos, 33 this Court held that "[a]s part of the chain of custody procedure, the law requires that the marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation of the same. The law further requires that the inventory and photography be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: (a) if prior to the amendment of R.A. No. 9165 by R.A. No. 10640, a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official; or (b) if after the amendment of R.A. No. 9165 by R.A. No. 10640, an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media. The law requires the presence of these witnesses primarily "to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence." 34

For the first link in the chain, while the confiscated items were not inventoried, marked, and photographed at the place where accused-appellant was arrested, the prosecution gave a valid justification for the same, such that the people were starting to gather at the place, thus, they had to transfer to the barangay hall of Guadalupe Viejo to conduct the inventory. The place of apprehension and/or seizure is volatile and could draw unpredictable reactions from its surroundings.

However, the Court notes that there were three (3) sachets of shabu seized from accused-appellant. One (1) of the three sachets was the subject of the sale, while the other two (2) sachets were subsequently found in his possession after his arrest. It was not established how the confiscated items were handled from the time of seizure from accused-appellant up to the marking of the same. The apprehending team failed to establish which of the three sachets was the subject of the sale and which ones were subsequently found in accused-appellant's possession after his arrest. PO1 Berog did not testify as to how he could distinguish, among the three sachets, the sachet of shabu subject of the charge for illegal sale under Sec. 5, and the two (2) sachets subject of the charge for illegal possession under Sec. 11, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165. The testimony of PO1 Berog as to how he handled the seized items failed to clearly establish the integrity of the seized items because there could be a possibility that the evidence may have been tampered with or exchanged/switched during the time that the specimens were in his custody, unmarked and unaccounted for.

Emphasis must be given to the fact that the seized items were not immediately marked. It creates doubt as to the identity and integrity of the seized items. It must be underscored that the apprehending officer is required to mark the seized items — to truly ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence — and it should be done (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator, and (2) immediately upon confiscation. 35

Moreover, the apprehending team failed to comply with the required witnesses rule such that no representatives from the DOJ and the media were present at the time of the physical inventory, marking, and taking of photographs of the seized evidence from accused-appellant. Moreover, PO1 Berog testified that the seized items were marked only in the presence of the accused-appellant and Barangay Kagawad Hein Angeles. PO1 Berog even admitted that there were no representatives from the media and DOJ at the time of the inventory of the seized items.

Not even the saving clause under the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 could excuse the apprehending team's noncompliance with the required witnesses. This saving clause applies only (1) where the prosecution recognizes the procedural lapses, and thereafter explains the cited justifiable grounds; and (2) when the prosecution establishes that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized has been preserved. The prosecution, thus, loses the benefit of invoking the presumption of regularity and bears the burden of proving — with moral certainty — that the illegal drug presented in court is the same drug that was confiscated from the accused during his arrest. 36

In this case, however, the prosecution offered no justification as to the failure of the apprehending team to secure the presence of representatives from the media and the DOJ to witness the inventory and photographing of the seized items. Notably, the buy-bust operation was arranged and scheduled in advance when the police officers formed an apprehending team, and even coordinated with the PDEA to assist them in the conduct of the buy-bust. The police officers had sufficient opportunity to secure the mandatory witnesses for the inventory and photographing of the seized drugs, but still failed to do so.

Police officers are ordinarily given sufficient time, from the moment they receive the information about the activities of the accused until the time of his arrest, to prepare for a buy-bust operation. They have to convince the Court that they exerted earnest efforts to comply with the mandated procedure and, that under the circumstances, their actions were reasonable. 37

The presence of the required witnesses mandated by Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 safeguards the accused from any unlawful tampering of the evidence against him. The practice of police operatives of not bringing to the intended place of arrest the witnesses required by law does not achieve the purpose of the law in having these witnesses prevent or insulate against the planting of drugs. They must not merely be called to witness the inventory, marking, and taking of photographs of the confiscated evidence. 38

Consequently, the signatures of accused-appellant and the Barangay Kagawad on the inventory receipt were rendered useless. The intent of the provisions of the law — to ensure the prevention and elimination of any possibility of tampering, alteration, or substitution, as well as the presentation in court of the drug that was confiscated at the time of apprehension of the accused — was not carried out in the instant case. Indeed, it is as if there were no witnesses to the inventory and marking of the evidence against accused-appellant, which is a total disregard of the requirements of Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165.

With regard to the third link in the chain of custody, which is the delivery by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist, the Court finds that the apprehending team was also unable to comply with the said link. The Court finds that the stipulated testimony of the forensic chemist, PSI Sahagun, failed to provide details as to how the specimens were received by her office. Notably, PSI Sahagun's testimony in the parties' stipulation that "On April 25, 2015, their office received specimen purportedly seized from the possession of accused Jason Oliva" 39 lacks details as to how the specimens were handled, as well as the condition of the same at the time of turnover to the SPD Crime Laboratory. It failed to cover the details regarding the identity of the staff who received the specimen and/or who actually turned over the same to PSI Sahagun for examination. Moreover, PSI Sahagun's testimony failed to corroborate PO1 Berog's statement that he personally delivered the specimen to the crime laboratory. This is a crucial missing link in establishing the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.

Anent the fourth link, it involves the submission of the seized drugs by the forensic chemist to the court when presented as evidence in the criminal case. 40 The Court finds that the said link was likewise not established. PSI Sahagun failed to give testimony as to how she handled the seized items while in her custody and while pending presentation in court. This casts serious doubts on the handling of the confiscated shabu as it is not clear as to how it was handled pending its presentation. This opens the possibility that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug may have been compromised.

This Court has ruled that even if the prosecution has proven the illegal sale of a dangerous drug, it is still required to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti. Consequently, even if there was indeed a sale, the corpus delicti cannot be proven if the chain of custody is not complied with. The prosecution's failure to prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized were preserved is fatal to the prosecution's case.

In sum, this Court finds that there was no proper inventory, marking, and taking of photographs of the seized items considering their absence of the required witnesses under the law and the prosecution's lack of justification for said absence. Given the procedural lapses, serious uncertainty hangs over the identification of the corpus delicti that the prosecution introduced into evidence. The integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti have, thus, been compromised. 41 Therefore, accused-appellant must be acquitted.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The September 11, 2018 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09120 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE for failure of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of accused-appellant Jason Oliva y Tumangan @ "Jason." He is hereby ACQUITTED of the crimes charged against him and ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from custody, unless he is being held for some other lawful cause.

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 Jason Oliva y Tumangan @ "Jason" within five (5) days from receipt hereof. aScITE

Let entry of judgment be issued.

SO ORDERED."Lopez, M., J., on official leave.

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. 14-15.

2.Id. at 3-13; penned by Associate Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, with Associate Justices Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla (retired Member of this Court) and Germano Francisco D. Legaspi, concurring.

3. CA rollo, pp. 42-46; penned by Judge Gina M. Bibat-Palamos.

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. 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

6. 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."

7. Records, pp. 2-5; CA rollo, p. 42.

8.Id. at 6-9; id.

9. CA rollo, pp. 43-44.

10.Id. at 44.

11.Id.

12.Id.

13.Id. at 45.

14.Id. at 42-46.

15.Id. at 46.

16.Id. at 44-45.

17.Id. at 45-46.

18.Rollo, pp. 3-13.

19.Id. at 12-13.

20.Id. at 10-11.

21.Id. at 14-15.

22. CA rollo, pp. 54 and 59.

23.Id. at 54-72.

24.Id. at 60.

25.Id. at 63.

26.Id. at 65.

27.Id.

28.Id. at 67-68.

29.Id. at 84-99.

30.People v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 235658, June 22, 2020.

31.People v. Ramos, G.R. No. 243944, March 15, 2021.

32.People v. Dela Cruz, 744 Phil. 816, 820 (2014).

33.Supra note 31.

34.Id.

35.People v. Dela Rosa, 822 Phil. 885, 904 (2017).

36.Padas v. People, G.R. No. 244327, October 14, 2019.

37.People v. Labadan, G.R. No. 237769, March 11, 2019, 895 SCRA 600, 631.

38.Padas v. People, supra note 36.

39. See CA rollo, p. 43.

40.People v. Del Rosario, supra note 30.

41.People v. Manabat, G.R. No. 242947, July 17, 2019.