FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 247317. September 14, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ALFREDO D. PELEGRINO, JR., accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated September 14, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 247317(People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee v. Alfredo D. Pelegrino, Jr., accused-appellant).
This is an appeal from the January 11, 2019 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01729-MIN. The CA affirmed the April 28, 2017 Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court, Panabo City, Branch 34 (RTC), finding Alfredo D. Pelegrino, Jr. (accused-appellant) 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."
Antecedents
Accused-appellant was charged with violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 in an Information 3 which reads: HTcADC
That on or about 10:45 o'clock in the morning of April 2, 2014 at the Island Garden City of Samal, Davao del Norte, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell two (2) small heat[-]sealed plastic sachet containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride otherwise known as shabu, a regulated drug, with a total weight of 0.1176 [gram] to a police poseur[-]buyer in a buy[-]bust operation, without the necessary license or authority to do so. 4
During arraignment on May 27, 2014, accused-appellant pleaded "not guilty" to the crime charged. 5 Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
Version of the Prosecution
On March 31, 2014, at around 8:00 a.m., a confidential informant (CI) came to the Penaplata Police Station Anti-Illegal Drugs-Special Operation Task Force (SAID-SOTF) located at the Island Garden City of Samal to inform Police Senior Inspector Roland Agohob (Chief Agohob), Chief of Police, of the illegal drug activities of a certain alias "Jun-jun Pelegrino" of Davao City, who was later identified as Alfredo Danmiar Pelegrino, Jr. He was reported to be bringing shabu from Davao City to the Island Garden City of Samal, particularly at Barangay Babak. 6
On April 2, 2014, at 7:30 a.m., the CI arrived at the police station and told Police Officer III Glenn Mutoc (PO3 Mutoc) to send a text message to accused-appellant that he would like to buy shabu worth P500.00. Accused-appellant replied that they should meet at 10:00 a.m. at the Petron Gasoline Station in Babak for the sale. Thereafter, PO3 Mutoc prepared the buy-bust money — a P500.00 bill marked with his initials "GMM" and his signature. Deputy Chief of Police Alfredo Rubico conducted a briefing wherein PO3 Mutoc was designated as the poseur-buyer and the agreed pre-arranged signal was to take off his bonnet. 7
The team, together with the CI, proceeded to the place of engagement. PO3 Mutoc and the CI were on board an Isuzu Trooper, while the rest were on motorcycles. PO3 Mutoc and the CI alighted from the vehicle and stood near the Petron Gasoline Station 8 a few meters away. Meanwhile, the rest of the backup team stayed inside the vehicle. Around 10 to 20 minutes later, accused-appellant arrived. The CI introduced PO3 Mutoc to accused-appellant as the buyer of shabu, but the latter did not answer. Instead he took out his wallet, pulled out two (2) plastic sachets of suspected shabu, and gave them to PO3 Mutoc. PO3 Mutoc examined the plastic sachets and handed over the P500.00 marked money which accused-appellant immediately placed inside his wallet. PO3 Mutoc then executed the pre-arranged signal prompting the backup operatives to rush towards the scene. After accused-appellant's arrest, PO3 Mutoc took possession of the two (2) sachets containing suspected shabu. When representatives from the barangay and Department of Justice (DOJ) arrived, PO3 Mutoc searched the body of accused-appellant and found a mobile phone, the P500.00 marked money, and an identification card inside his wallet. The inventory, tagging, and marking of the confiscated items, as well as the taking of photographs were done at the crime scene. 9
Subsequently, the buy-bust team brought accused-appellant to the police station where the police prepared the pertinent documents for the transmittal of the seized items for laboratory examination and urine test. 10
The Philippine National Police Regional Crime Laboratory Office in Tagum City examined the heat-sealed plastic sachets marked "GMM-2" to "GMM-3." After examination, the confiscated items yielded positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. 11
Version of the Defense
Accused-appellant testified that in the early morning of April 2, 2014, he was at the Petron Gasoline Station in Barangay Villarica, Babak District, Island Garden City of Samal, to meet his close friend Bobong Mosqueda (Bobong). Bobong had asked him through a text message if he had P1,500.00 to spare for buying some shabu, which he would, in turn, pay back for P2,000.00. He knew that shabu is an illegal drug but he still acceded to the request as he did not want his friend to feel indifferent towards him for not agreeing with it. Bobong had asked him to buy shabu because accused-appellant knew the sources. He was in constant communication with Bobong when he traveled from Davao City to the agreed place in Babak bringing with him P1,500.00 worth of shabu that he had purchased from a certain "Babu" at Boulevard, Davao City. 12
When accused-appellant arrived in Samal past 10:00 a.m., he walked towards the Petron Gasoline Station in Babak and waited for Bobong, who arrived five minutes later. Bobong approached and gave him P2,000.00; in turn, he handed one (1) small and one (1) big sachet of shabu worth P1,500.00. He noticed that Bobong was squirming which made him feel nervous. Sensing that something was wrong, he immediately walked away from the gasoline station. He was on his way back to the wharf when four (4) armed civilians immediately pointed their guns to his head, took the P2,000.00 he was holding, as well as his cell phone and wallet, and ordered him to drop to the ground. He felt afraid and cried when they placed the two (2) sachets of shabu in front of him, which were the same shabu sachets he had given to Bobong. 13
The RTC Ruling
In its April 28, 2017 Decision, 14 the RTC found accused-appellant guilty of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The RTC gave credence to the police officers' testimony over that of the accused-appellant's defense of denial and frame-up. It held that the prosecution was able to establish the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165. The RTC explained that it was proven that the accused had sold two (2) sachets of shabu to PO3 Mutoc in a legitimate buy-bust operation. It was also shown that there was no break in the chain of custody of the seized drugs. The fallo reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered, finding accused Alfredo D. Pelegrino, Jr.[,] guilty beyond reasonable doubt of selling shabu defined and penalized under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165.
Accordingly, he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and is likewise directed to pay fine in the amount of Php500,000.00 without however subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. In the service of his sentence, accused is entitled to full time he has undergone preventive imprisonment, if any, pursuant to Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code.
Accused shall serve his sentence at Davao Prison and Penal Farm, B.E. Dujali, Davao del Norte. aScITE
The subject two sachets of shabu referred to in the information is ordered confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government through the PDEA subject to destruction by the latter in accordance with existing laws and regulations. In connection thereto, PDEA Regional Office XI, Davao City is directed to assume custody of the subject drugs for its proper disposition within ten (10) days from notice.
SO ORDERED. 15
The CA Ruling
In its January 11, 2019 Decision, 16 the CA affirmed accused-appellant's conviction. It sustained the RTC's findings that the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. It admitted that the inventory was not signed by accused-appellant but it was duly signed by a representative of the DOJ and a barangay official. It opined that this substantially complied with the requirements laid down in Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165. Moreover, it stressed that the chain of custody of the shabu was shown to be unbroken. According to the CA, it is presumed that the police officers regularly perform their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary. Accused-appellant failed to overcome this presumption.
Hence, this appeal.
Issues
Accused-appellant raised the following errors:
I.
WHETHER OR NOT NONCOMPLIANCE BY THE ARRESTING OFFICERS WITH THE PROCEDURE DRAWN IN [SEC.] 21 OF R.A. NO. 9165 WOULD DISCHARGE THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT FROM THE CRIME OF WHICH HE WAS CONVICTED; AND
II.
WHETHER THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT WAS ESTABLISHED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. 17
In its August 28, 2019 Resolution, 18 the Court required the parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desired. In its December 16, 2019 Manifestation in Lieu of Supplemental Brief, 19 the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) manifested that it would no longer file a supplemental brief because its appellee's brief had already discussed the propriety of accused-appellant's conviction. In its January 2, 2020 Manifestation in Lieu of Supplemental Brief, 20 accused-appellant averred that he would no longer file a supplemental brief considering that he had thoroughly discussed his defense in his appellant's brief.
In the said Appellant's Brief 21 filed before the CA, accused-appellant claims that the prosecution failed to prove the identity of the corpus delicti; that there was noncompliance with the requirements laid down in Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165; that the marked money was not dusted with ultraviolet powder, thus raising doubt as to whether a sale actually took place; that the inventory was not signed by him, or his counsel, or by a representative of the media; that the photographs lack proper identification by the person or persons who took them; and that the prosecution failed to present the testimony of the forensic chemist as to the handling and the safekeeping of the seized drugs.
In its Appellee's Brief 22 before the CA, the OSG urges this Court to affirm the challenged decision of the RTC because the prosecution duly proved all the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The OSG argues that there is no provision in R.A. No. 9165 or its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) which requires the dusting of the marked money with ultraviolet powder. It insists that the chain of custody rule was complied with and that the police officers were able to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.
The Court's Ruling
The Court finds the appeal meritorious.
To sustain a conviction for the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the necessary elements are: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. 23 It is essential to prove that a transaction or sale actually took place coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of the corpus delicti. 24 The corpusdelicti in cases involving dangerous drugs is the presentation of the dangerous drug itself and its offer as evidence.
It is of utmost importance that the integrity and identity of the seized drugs must be clearly shown to have been duly preserved with moral certainty. 25 "This means that on top of the elements of possession or illegal sale, the fact that the substance illegally sold or possessed is, in the first instance, the very substance adduced in court must likewise be established with the same exacting degree of certitude as that required in sustaining a conviction." 26 The chain of custody rule performs this function as it ensures that any unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. 27
As 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. 28 The law further 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 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, 29 a representative from the media AND the DOJ, and any elected public official; 30 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 31OR the media. 32 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." 33
In the instant case, since the offense charged was committed on March 31, 2014, the provisions of Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 shall apply. Thus, the three (3) witnesses mandated by law to be present during the inventory and taking of photographs must be complied with.
The prosecution failed to
In the instant case, the buy-bust team committed several patent procedural lapses in the conduct of the seizure and handling of the seized drug — which thus created reasonable doubt as to the identity and integrity of the drug and consequently, reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused. 34
Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 requires the presence of three witnesses during the inventory and photograph-taking: (1) a media representative; (2) a representative from the DOJ; and (3) any elected public official. Sec. 21 pertinently states:
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof[.] (emphasis supplied)
The IRR further elaborates on the proper procedure to be followed in Sec. 21 (a), Art. II of R.A. No. 9165. It provides:
(a) The apprehending office/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further that 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 of and custody over said items[.] HEITAD
In the instant case, it was evident from the testimony of PO3 Mutoc that there were no insulating witnesses at the time of the apprehension of accused-appellant and that there was no representative from the media during the inventory:
Pros. Apao
Q: What did you do with the subject shabu which was handed to you by the accused?
A: We waited for the representative of the barangay [o]fficial and DOJ before we conducted the inventory at the area, sir.
Q: Were you able to conduct inventory at the place where the buy-bust operation happened?
A: Yes, we were able to conduct inventory and likewise, the marking of the items that we were able to take from the suspect, sir.
Q: Who were present during the inventory, tagging and marking of the items taken from the accused?
A: One barangay official of Brgy. Villarica and a DOJ representative were present when we did the inventory, marking and tagging, sir. 35
The Court has held that the presence of the required number of witnesses at the time of the apprehension and inventory is mandatory, and that their presence serves an essential purpose. 36 In People v.Tomawis, 37 the Court held:
The presence of the three witnesses must be secured not only during the inventory but more importantly at the time of the warrantless arrest. It is at this point in which the presence of the three witnesses is most needed, as it is their presence at the time of seizure and confiscation that would belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug. If the buy-bust operation is legitimately conducted, the presence of the insulating witnesses would also controvert the usual defense of frame-up as the witnesses would be able to testify that the buy-bust operation and inventory of the seized drugs were done in their presence in accordance with Section 21 of RA 9165.
The practice of police operatives of not bringing to the intended place of arrest the three witnesses, when they could easily do so — and "calling them in" to the place of inventory to witness the inventory and photographing of the drugs only after the buy-bust operation has already been finished — does not achieve the purpose of the law in having these witnesses prevent or insulate against the planting of drugs.
To restate, the presence of the three witnesses at the time of seizure and confiscation of the drugs must be secured and complied with at the time of the warrantless arrest; such that they are required to be at or near the intended place of the arrest so that they can be ready to witness the inventory and photographing of the seized and confiscated drugs "immediately after seizure and confiscation."
It bears stressing that the prosecution has the burden of proving compliance with the requirements of Sec. 21. In case of deviation from or noncompliance with the said requirements, the prosecution must sufficiently explain why Sec. 21 was not complied with. 38 In this case, however, the prosecution offered no justification as to the absence of a representative from the media. The prosecution did not even recognize their procedural lapses or give any plausible explanation on why the apprehending team did not conduct the marking, inventory, and taking of photographs of the seized evidence in the presence of a media representative. Neither was it proven by the prosecution that the police officers exerted genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of all the required witnesses during that time.
By failing to follow even the basic witness requirement under Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, the police officers cannot be presumed to have regularly exercised their duties during the buy-bust operation. The blatant violations committed by police officers cannot be countenanced. 39
Moreover, the certificate of inventory that was produced by the prosecution was irregularly executed. Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 requires that the copies of the inventory should be signed by the following persons: 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, and any elected public official.
The Receipt/Inventory of Property Seized 40 itself reveals that the document was not signed by accused-appellant or by his counsel or representative. Upon perusal of the records of the instant case, the prosecution did not acknowledge such defect. Nor did the prosecution provide any explanation whatsoever as to why accused-appellant was not able to sign the certificate of inventory.
It must be pointed out, however, that contrary to appellant's claim, the police officers' failure to use ultraviolet powder on the buy-bust money does not invalidate the sale. There is nothing in R.A. No. 9165 or its IRR which requires the buy-bust money to be dusted with ultraviolet powder before it can be legally used in a buy-bust operation. 41
The prosecution failed to
In People v. Hementiza, 42 the Court enumerated the links that the prosecution must establish in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation to be as follows: 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. 43
In this case, aside from noncompliance with the mandatory rules in the inventory and photography of the seized items, the Court finds that the fourth link in the chain of custody was not clearly established by the prosecution.
The fourth link refers to the turnover and submission of the dangerous drug from the forensic chemist to the court. 44 In drug related cases, it is of paramount necessity that the forensic chemist testifies as to details pertinent 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, as the case may be. 45 Further, the forensic chemist must also identify the name and method of analysis used in determining the chemical composition of the subject specimens. 46 ATICcS
In this case, the prosecution did not present the forensic chemist who examined the substances. The forensic chemist was unable to attest to the fact that the substances presented in court were the same substances she found positive for shabu. Absent any testimony on the management, storage, and preservation of the illegal drugs allegedly seized after their qualitative examination, the fourth link in the chain of custody could not be reasonably established. 47 This casts serious doubts on the identity and the integrity of the corpus delicti. In Mallillin v. People, 48 the Court explained:
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. 49
Verily, the unjustified procedural lapses committed by the arresting officers in this case militate against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt against accused-appellant, as there is no sufficient safeguard that the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti has not been compromised. 50 In this regard, accused-appellant's acquittal is necessarily in order.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated January 11, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01729-MIN, which affirmed the April 28, 2017 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Panabo City, Branch 34, in Criminal Case No. CrC 177-2014, finding accused-appellant Alfredo D. Pelegrino, Jr. guilty of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, is REVERSED and SETASIDE. Accused-appellant Alfredo D. Pelegrino, Jr. is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is ORDERED to IMMEDIATELYRELEASE accused-appellant from detention, unless he is being lawfully held in custody for any other reason, and to INFORM this Court of his action hereon within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
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. 4-16; penned by Associate Justice Edgardo A. Camello with Associate Justice Tita Marilyn Payoyo-Villordon and Associate Justice Loida S. Posadas-Kahulugan, concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 40-51; penned by Presiding Judge Dax Gonzaga Xenos.
3.Id. at 40.
4.Id.
5.Id.
6.Rollo, p. 6.
7.Id.
8. Also referred to as "Petron Gasoline Station I" in some parts of the rollo.
9.Rollo, p. 7.
10.Id.
11.Id. at 7-8.
12.Id. at 8.
13.Id. at 8-9.
14. CA rollo, pp. 40-51.
15.Id. at 50-51.
16.Rollo, pp. 4-16.
17. CA rollo, p. 27.
18.Rollo, pp. 23-24.
19.Id. at 26-28.
20.Id. at 31-32.
21. CA rollo, pp. 19-38.
22.Id. at 66-80.
23.People v. Roble, 663 Phil. 147, 157 (2011).
24.Id.
25.People v. Arellaga, G.R. No. 231796, August 24, 2020.
26.Id., citing People v. Adrid, 705 Phil. 654, 670 (2013).
27.Id., citing Fajardo v. People, 691 Phil. 752, 758-759 (2012).
28.Matabilas v. People, G.R. No. 243615, November 11, 2019.
29. Entitled "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.'" As the Court noted in People v. Gutierrez (See G.R. No. 236304, November 5, 2018) and Matabilas v. People (See G.R. No. 243615, November 11, 2019), R.A. No. 10640 was approved on July 15, 2014. Under Sec. 5 thereof, it shall "take effect fifteen (15) days after its complete publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation." R.A. No. 10640 was published on July 23, 2014 in The Philippine Star (Vol. XXVIII, No. 359, Philippine Star Metro section, p. 21) and Manila Bulletin (Vol. 499, No. 23; World News section, p. 6). Thus, R.A. No. 10640 appears to have become effective on August 7, 2014.
30. See Sec. 21 (1) and (2), Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR.
31. Which falls under the DOJ. (See Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1275, entitled "Reorganizing the Prosecution Staff of the Department of Justice, Regionalizing the Prosecution Service, and Creating the National Prosecution Service" [April 11, 1978] and Section 3 of R.A. No. 10071, entitled "An Act Strengthening and Rationalizing the National Prosecution Service" otherwise known as the "Prosecution Service Act of 2010" [lapsed into law on April 8, 2010].
32. See Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640.
33. See Matabilas v. People, supra note 28.
34.People v. Santos, G.R. No. 218579, December 5, 2019.
35. TSN, September 18, 2015, pp. 14-15.
36. See People v. Arellaga, supra note 25, citing People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 234151, December 5, 2018.
37. 830 Phil. 385 (2018).
38. See People v. Arellaga, supra note 25.
39.People v. Cutamora, G.R. No. 233541, June 8, 2020.
40. Records, p. 22.
41.People v. Frias, G.R. No. 234686, June 10, 2019, citing People v. Unisa, 674 Phil. 89, 113 (2011).
42. 807 Phil. 1017 (2017).
43.Id. at 1030, as cited in People v. Omamos, G.R. No. 223036, July 10, 2019.
44.People v. Nocum, G.R. No. 239905, January 20, 2021 (Unsigned Resolution), citing People v.Hementiza, supra note 42, at 1037.
45.Id.
46. Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002: Guidelines on the Custody and Disposition of Seized Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, and Laboratory Equipment.
47.People v. Ubungen, 836 Phil. 888, 902 (2018).
48. 576 Phil. 576 (2008).
49.Id. at 587.
50. See People v. Crispo, 828 Phil. 416, 436-437 (2018).