THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 233247. July 12, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.LEVIO PERICON, SR. y FERRER, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 12, 2021, which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 233247 (People of the Philippines v. Levio Pericon, Sr. y Ferrer). — Challenged in this appeal 1 is the January 19, 2017 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02011 which affirmed the January 12, 2015 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 47, Bacolod City convicting appellant Levio Pericon, Sr. y Ferrer (Pericon, Sr.) of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs as defined in Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165), otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Antecedents:
Accused-appellant Pericon, Sr. was charged before the RTC with violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, under separate two Informations which read:
Criminal Case No. 09-32663
That on or about the 14th day of August 2009, in the City of Bacolod, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the herein accused, not being authorized by law to sell, trade, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drugs, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and give away to a PDEA poseur-buyer [SO2 Elmer T. Ebona] in a buy-bust operation five (5) cigarette sticks of marijuana, a dangerous drug, having a total weight of 0.97 gram in exchange for a price of P100.00 in [P100 bill] marked money with SNKU976572, in violation of the aforementioned law.
Act contrary to law. 4
Criminal Case No. 09-32664
That on or about the 14th day of August, 2009, in the City of Bacolod, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the herein accused, not being authorized by law to possess any dangerous drugs, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and under his custody and control twenty-six (26) cigarette sticks of marijuana placed in a coffee mate container, a dangerous drugs, having a total weight of 5.0 grams, in violation of the aforementioned law.
Act contrary to law. 5
Upon arraignment, Pericon, Sr. pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
Evidence for the Prosecution:
The evidence for the prosecution presented the following version of events:
On August 5, 2009, at around 9 o'clock in the morning, one of Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA)'s confidential informants arrived at the PDEA safe house in Bacolod City and informed Security Officer 2 Elmer T. Ebona (SO2 Ebona) and his colleagues that Pericon, Sr., who was on the PDEA watch list, was selling marijuana at Barangay Estefania, Bacolod City. Thus, Intelligence Officer 2 Von Rian Tecson (IO2 Tecson) organized a team composed of SO2 Ebona, IO1 Aline B. Cimafranca (IO1 Cimafranca), IO1 Cleveland Villamor, and IO1 Novemar Pinanonang, to conduct casing and surveillance of Pericon, Sr. The team conducted surveillance on August 7, 2009 from 6 o'clock in the evening until 12 midnight. They noticed that persons were going in and out of accused-appellant's house whom the confidential informant identified as buyers of marijuana. Hence, they planned a buy-bust operation against Pericon, Sr. with SO2 Ebona as the designated poseur-buyer and IO1 Cimafranca as the assigned back-up. 6
On August 14, 2009, at around 8 o'clock in the morning, 7 the confidential informant informed IO2 Tecson through a phone call that accused-appellant acquired new stocks of marijuana and was about to sell them. At around 12:50 P.M. of the same day, the buy-bust team together with the confidential informant arrived at their target area. Then, SO2 Ebona and the confidential informant went to Pericon, Sr.'s house where they saw him standing near its open front door. After seeing accused-appellant, the confidential informant introduced SO2 Ebona and told him that they wanted to buy marijuana. Pericon, Sr. replied asking for money. They showed him the marked P100 bill and the appellant told them to go inside his house. The confidential informant went to accused-appellant's living room while SO2 Ebona stayed near the door where he can be seen from the living room. Afterwards, accused-appellant took something from a Coffee mate container which he brought over to SO2 Ebona. The items were five (5) sticks of marijuana. Upon receipt, SO2 Ebona gave the marked P100 bill. As soon as accused-appellant received the marked money, SO2 Ebona executed the pre-arranged signal by removing the baseball cap he was wearing. Thus, the rest of the team converged at Pericon, Sr.'s house. 8
Before the arrival of the rest of buy-bust team, SO2 Ebona introduced himself as a PDEA agent, placed accused-appellant under arrest and ordered him to sit in one of the corners of his house. Thereafter, IO1 Cimafranca informed accused-appellant of his violations and also introduced herself as a PDEA agent. After being informed by SO2 Ebona that there were more marijuana inside the Coffee mate container, IO1 Cimafranca searched the said container which was on top of the table and recovered 26 other marijuana sticks and a pack of rolling paper. She also recovered the marked P100 bill from accused-appellant's right front pocket. The items were marked at the crime scene and an inventory was conducted in the presence of the appellant, media representative Rox Estrella, barangay official Diosdado Valenzuela and a certain Marcelino T. Fernandez. 9 The five (5) marijuana sticks sold by appellant to SO2 Ebona and 26 other marijuana sticks recovered inside the coffee mate container were marked LPF-1 to LPF-31. The other items included in the inventory were the marked P100 bill, one (1) coffee mate plastic container and one (1) pack of rolling paper. IO1 Cimafranca also took photographs of the seized items during the inventory. After the marking and inventory, IO1 Cimafranca informed accused-appellant of his violations. 10
Afterwards, Pericon, Sr. and the seized items were brought to the police station. The PDEA agents went back to their safe house where SO2 Ebona prepared a request for laboratory examination. 11 SO2 Ebona had possession and custody of the 31 sticks of marijuana from their confiscation until the turn over thereof to Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory for laboratory examination at around 6:50 p.m. of August 14, 2009. 12
Police Chief Inspector Paul S. Puentespina (PCI Puentespina) of the PNP Crime Laboratory conducted physical and chemical examinations on the seized 31 marijuana sticks which all yielded positive results of the presence of marijuana, a dangerous drug. 13
Evidence for the Defense:
According to the evidence for the defense, on August 14, 2009, at around 12 noon, accused-appellant was taking a bath when he suddenly heard a loud thud. He hurriedly took a towel and wrapped it around himself, went out, and saw two men standing in front of their main door. The men introduced themselves as police officers and pointed their gun at them. At that time, he was with his wife, daughter-in-law and two granddaughters aged 3 and 5 years old. Thereafter, one of the men entered the master's bedroom while the other one took out from his pocket a plastic container with the name Coffee mate. He opened the container and placed it on top of the table with a P100 bill. Afterwards, the policemen made calls through their cellular phones and three other persons arrived. Then, a media representative and barangay officials also arrived. Photographs were then taken and then appellant was brought to the police station. 14
Both Estella Santos Pericon (Estrella) and Doreen F. Pericon (Doreen), appellant's wife and daughter-in-law, respectively, corroborated the testimony of appellant. 15
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:
On January 12, 2015, the RTC rendered its Decision 16 convicting Pericon, Sr. of violation of Section 5 and Section 11, Article II of RA 9165. The dispositive portion of the trial court's Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, finding accused Levio Pericon, Sr. y Ferrer GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of: (a) Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act 9165 (Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs) in Criminal Case 09-32663; and (b) Violation of Section 11, Article II of the same law (Possession of Dangerous Drugs) in Criminal Case 09-32664, judgment is hereby rendered sentencing him to suffer; (1) Life Imprisonment, and to pay a fine of Php500,000.00 in Criminal Case No. 09-32663; and (2) an indeterminate prison term of Twelve (12) Years and One (1) day, as minimum, to Fifteen (15) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of Php300,000.00 in Criminal Case No. 09-32664. He is also to bear the accessory penalties provided by law. Costs against accused.
The subject 5 sticks of marijuana cigarettes marked "LPF-1" to "LPF-5" (Exhibit "G-2-A-1" — 0.20 gram; Exhibit "G-2-A-2" — 0.18 gram; Exhibit "G-2-A3" — 0.19 gram; Exhibit "G-2-A-4" — 0.19 gram; and Exhibit "G-2-A-5" — 0.21 gram) and 26 sticks of marijuana cigarettes marked as "LPF-6" to "LPF-31" (Exhibit "G-2-A-6" — 0.20 gram; Exhibit "G-2-A-7" — 020 gram; Exhibit "G-2-A-8" — 0.18 gram; Exhibit "G-2-A-9" — 0.17 gram; Exhibit "G-2-A-10" — 0.21 gram; Exhibit "G-2-A-11" — 0.21 gram; Exhibit "G-2-A-12" — 0.19 gram; Exhibit "G-2-A-13" — 0.18 gram; Exhibit "G-2-A-14" — 0.18 gram; Exhibit "G-2-A-15" — 0.20 gram; Exhibit "G-2-A-16" — 0.18 gram; Exhibit "G-2-A-17" — 0.20 gram; Exhibit "G-2-A-18" — 0.19 gram; Exhibit "G-2-A-19" — 0.19 gram; Exhibit "G-2-A-20" — 0.17 gram; Exhibit "G-2-A-21" — 0.16 gram; Exhibit "G-2-A-22" — 0.21 gram; Exhibit "G-2-A-23" — 0.20 gram; Exhibit "G-2-A-24" — 0.18 gram; Exhibit "G-2-A-25" — 0.21 gram; Exhibit "G-2-A-26" — 0.19 gram; Exhibit "G-2-A-27" — 0.19 gram; Exhibit "G-2-A-28" — 0.20 gram; Exhibit "G-2-A-29" — 0.19 gram; Exhibit "G-2-A-30" — 0.23 gram and Exhibit "G-2-A-31" — 0.19 gram), being dangerous drugs, are hereby ordered confiscated and/or forfeited in favor of the government and to be forthwith delivered or turned over to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) provincial office for immediate destruction or disposition in accordance with law.
The prompt commitment of the accused to the national penitentiary for service of sentence is hereby furthermore ordered.
SO ORDERED. 17
The trial court ruled that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty stands in the absence of proof of motive to falsely impute such grave offenses against the accused-appellant. Also, the trial court found that the prosecution had duly proved that the identity and evidentiary value of the seized items from its confiscation until their presentation in court, had been duly preserved. The non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 is not fatal as long as there is justifiable ground therefor and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, are properly preserved. 18
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
In its assailed Decision, 19 the CA denied accused-appellant's appeal and affirmed the RTC's conviction of Pericon, Sr. on both illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. The dispositive portion of the appellate court's Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The January 12, 2015 Decision rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 47, Bacolod City is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 20
According to the appellate court, the prosecution has duly established appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165. The law officers are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner. To overcome this presumption, there must be evidence to the contrary suggesting ill motive. However, no such ill motive was shown in this case. The testimonies of accused-appellant's wife and daughter-in-law, although not inadmissible, cannot be given full weight and credit as these are self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declarations of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. Hence, the appellate court accorded credence on the testimonies of the three PDEA agents which are duly supported by documentary evidence. 21
Issue
Both Pericon, Sr. and appellee adopted their respective briefs filed before the appellate court. 22 The lone issue raised for consideration of this Court is whether or not the courts a quo gravely erred in convicting appellant despite the failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Accused-appellant's Arguments:
Accused-appellant argues that there was no valid buy-bust operation conducted against him as he was illegally arrested. He claims that his wife Estrella fully supported his testimony that he was arrested without a search warrant or warrant of arrest. Also, he contends that the police officers allowed several days to pass after the surveillance operations before conducting a buy-bust operation and without securing a search warrant. They only conducted a buy-bust operation because of a simple information that he acquired new items to be sold. In addition, accused-appellant avers that although he was allegedly already in the watch list but still the police officers conducted a buy-bust operation only upon the report of the confidential informant. Moreover, no search was made in the house of accused-appellant after the alleged buy-bust operation which is contrary to human experience. These accounts or events are questionable as it is unbelievable for these officers not to exert extra effort to search for more illegal items in appellant's house. 23
While it is true that the right of the accused to question the legality of his arrest is deemed waived upon entering his plea and active participation in the case, it does not carry with it a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during an illegal warrantless arrest. Hence, there being no warrantless arrest, it follows that the seized items are inadmissible in evidence being "fruit of the poisonous tree." Further, accused-appellant contends that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot overcome the presumption of innocence of the accused. 24
Lastly, Pericon, Sr. claims that although the defense of denial and frame-up is weak, it should not be used to strengthen the prosecution's case. The conviction must rely on the strength of the prosecution's evidence and not on the weakness of the defense. 25
Appellee's Arguments:
On the other hand, appellee argues that the prosecution was able to prove the elements of illegal sale and possession of marijuana beyond reasonable doubt. A buy-bust operation is a valid and legitimate form of entrapment. The police officers are favored in such instance with the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty. In this case, the prosecution has duly proved that the accused-appellant sold and possessed dangerous drugs prohibited under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165 through a valid buy-bust operation. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are straightforward as to: (a) receipt of information as to the illegal drugs activity in the area where accused-appellant was apprehended; (b) the organization of the buy-bust team; (c) the preparations made for the purpose; (d) the entrapment itself leading to the arrest of the accused-appellant; (e) the marking of the seized items; and (f) the eventual delivery of the specimens to the crime laboratory. 26
Further, appellee avers that the identity of the corpus delicti was duly preserved and established by the prosecution based on the testimonies of the witnesses. Accused-appellant utterly failed to discharge the burden of proving that the evidence was tampered or meddled with to overcome the presumption of regularity in the handling of the seized items and that the police officers properly discharged their duties. Neither did the defense prove that there was ill motive nor bad faith on the part of the police officers to falsely impute upon accused-appellant the commission of the crimes charged. Hence, the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty applies. 27
Lastly, the testimonies of accused-appellant's wife and daughter-in-law that Pericon, Sr. was taking a bath when the police officers barged in and arrested him cannot be given credence considering their relationship to accused-appellant. Also, bare denials cannot prevail over positive testimonies of the witnesses which clearly identified accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the crimes charged. 28
Our Ruling
After due consideration, we resolve to affirm Pericon, Sr.'s conviction of sale and possession of marijuana defined in Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165.
The appeal mainly hinges on the legality of the buy-bust operation conducted by the PDEA agents against the accused-appellant on August 14, 2009. In the prosecution for illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary. 29 To refute the testimonies of the PDEA agents involved in the buy-bust operation, accused-appellant asserts certain facts that would allegedly prove that the operation was a sham, such as: (a) the failure of PDEA agents to obtain a search warrant and/or warrant of arrest after receiving information on August 5, 2009 and conducting surveillance operation on August 7, 2009; (b) lapse of seven (7) days from the surveillance operation before the PDEA agents conducted the buy-bust operation on August 14, 2009; (c) acting on the information received on August 14, 2009 that accused-appellant allegedly had new stocks of marijuana to be sold; (d) failure of the PDEA agents to search the whole house of Pericon, Sr. after the latter's arrest; and (e) testimonies of Pericon Sr.'s wife and daughter-in-law corroborating his testimony that he was at the bathroom during the time two police officers barged in at their house belying the testimonies of the PDEA agents that they conducted a buy-bust operation.
The nature and legality of buy-bust operations have long been established by this Court in People v. Bongalon, 30 to wit:
A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment that is resorted to for trapping and capturing felons in the execution of their criminal plan. The operation is sanctioned by law and has consistently proved to be an effective method of apprehending drug peddlers. Unless there is a clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or were not properly performing their duty, their testimonies on the operation deserve full faith and credit. 31
Furthermore, in Peoplev. Doria32 which we reiterated in People v. Agulay, 33 this Court explained that an accused may be arrested without a warrant when he is apprehended in flagrante delicto as a result of a buy-bust operation:
We also hold that the warrantless arrest of accused-appellant Doria is not unlawful. Warrantless arrests are allowed in three instances as provided by Section 5 of Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, to wit:
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.
xxx xxx xxx
Under Section 5 (a), as above-quoted, a person may be arrested without a warrant if he "has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense." Appellant Doria was caught in the act of committing an offense. When an accused is apprehended in flagrante delicto as a result of a buy-bust operation, the police are not only authorized but duty-bound to arrest him even without a warrant. 34 [Emphasis ours.]
The absence of a search warrant and/or warrant of arrest in this case is not essential because the appellant was caught inflagrante delicto. The fact that it took the PDEA agents seven (7) days from the conduct of surveillance to proceed with the buy-bust operation will not serve to exonerate the accused-appellant from the charges against him. It bears stressing that a buy-bust operation can be carried out after a long period of planning. The period of planning for such operation cannot be dictated to the police authorities who are to undertake such operation. 35 Besides, the PDEA agents immediately organized and executed their plan to entrap accused-appellant through a buy-bust operation in a matter of hours after receiving information that appellant acquired new stocks of marijuana to sell. Hence, it is pointless then to argue that the PDEA agents had to first secure a search warrant and/or warrant of arrest given that the objective of a buy-bust operation was to apprehend appellant inflagrante delicto. In fact, one of the situations covered by a lawful warrantless arrest under Section 5 (a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court is when a person has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense in the presence of a peace officer or private person.
To reiterate, buy-bust operations are sanctioned by law and considered an effective form of entrapment. Hence, accused-appellant's contention that the failure of the PDEA agents to secure a search warrant and/or warrant of arrest is fatal to his prosecution for illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs has no factual and legal basis. What is important in this case is that Pericon, Sr. was caught selling and possessing dangerous drugs after a successful and legitimate buy-bust operation.
Having settled the existence of a valid buy-bust operation, the subsequent arrest of accused-appellant was therefore lawful having been caught in flagrante delicto. Consequently, the PDEA agents conducting the same are not required to secure a search warrant and/or a warrant of arrest in order to arrest and search accused-appellant. There is no truth, therefore, to the argument of Pericon, Sr. that the buy-bust operation was a mere sham or a frame-up to indict him for the crimes charged. The factual issues he raised would not exculpate him unless there is a clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or were not properly performing their duty. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, therefore, deserve full faith and credit.
We also find no merit in the contention that it is contrary to human experience that the PDEA agents did not search the whole house of accused-appellant. It must be pointed out that Pericon, Sr. was arrested inflagrante delicto or through a valid warrantless arrest, thus he may be searched incidental to his lawful arrest which is limited to a body search and to that point within reach or control of the person arrested, or that which may furnish him with the means of committing violence or of escaping. 36 As can be gleaned from the records, accused-appellant was caught selling and possessing dangerous drugs in his living room. Hence, it can hardly be said that the other portions of his house such as the bedrooms were within his reach or control at that time of arrest. The PDEA agents, therefore, properly acted when they did not search the other parts of accused-appellant's house without a valid search warrant as these other portions do not constitute "within reach or control of the person" during the arrest.
Lastly, accused-appellant's defense of alibi corroborated by his wife and daughter-in-law cannot be given any credence. We have consistently ruled that where an accused's alibi was established only by himself and his relatives, his denial of culpability deserves scant consideration, especially when the prosecution's witnesses are credible and affirmatively identified the accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the crimes charged. 37 As between the testimonies of Pericon Sr.'s wife and daughter-in-law and the PDEA agents, the latter shall prevail especially since these law officers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties unless there was proof of improper motive on their part. In addition, the testimonies of these law officers were duly supported by the documents on records, such as the Certificate of Inventory, photographs, Request for Laboratory Examination, and Chemistry Report No. D-054-2009.
Although not raised in this appeal, it bears stressing that the prosecution has sufficiently established that the identity and integrity of the seized items had been duly preserved in an unbroken chain of custody. The seized items were marked and inventoried at the place of arrest and seizure and in the presence of appellant, media representative Rox Estrella, barangay official Diosdado Valenzuela, and a certain Marcelino T. Fernandez. Photographs were taken of the confiscated items and the signing of the inventory receipt at the place of arrest. From the time of confiscation until the turn over to the PNP Crime Laboratory, SO2 Ebona had the custody of the seized items. Then, the seized items were personally turned over by SO2 Ebona to the PNP Crime Laboratory. The items were received by PO2 Magbanua at around 4:50 p.m. of August 14, 2009.
Further, Forensic Chemist PSI Puentespina testified that he was present at the time of the delivery of these confiscated items as received by PO2 Magbanua. During that time, the seized items were kept and stored by evidence custodian PO2 Magbanua in the evidence room with three padlocks whose keys were held by PO2 Magbanua and the Provincial Chief Police Superintendent Lazaro Sumali. The next day or on August 15, 2009, the seized items were taken out by PO2 Magbanua from the evidence room upon the instruction of PSI Puentespina so he could perform the necessary tests on the seized items. PSI Puentespina then conducted physical and chemical test on the seized items which yielded positive results for marijuana. Despite certain lapses in complying with Section 21 of RA 9165, such as, the absence of the Department of Justice representative in the inventory of the seized items, the finding of guilt of the accused-appellant will not be affected for as long as the chain of custody remains unbroken. We, therefore, affirm the appellate court's finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt of accused-appellant Pericon, Sr. for illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The January 19, 2017 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02011 is hereby AFFIRMED IN TOTO. Accused-appellant Levio Pericon, Sr. y Ferrer is hereby found GUILTY of violation of (a) Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 in Criminal Case No. 09-32663 and is hereby SENTENCED to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to PAY a fine of P500,000.00; and (b) Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 in Criminal Case No. 09-32664 and is hereby SENTENCED to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to fifteen (15) years as maximum and to PAY a fine of P300,000.00.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) RUMAR D. PASIONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. CA rollo, pp. 145-147.
2.Id. at 129-143; penned by Associate Justice Pablito A. Perez and concurred in by Associate Justices Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and Gabriel T. Robeniol.
3. Records, pp. 183-199; penned by Judge Therese Blanche A. Bolunia.
4.Id. at 1. (Folder: Criminal Case No. 09-32663).
5.Id. at 1. (Folder: Criminal Case No. 09-32664).
6.Rollo, pp. 7-8.
7. CA rollo, p. 66.
8.Rollo, pp. 8-9.
9.Id. at 9.
10. CA rollo, p. 68.
11.Rollo, p. 9.
12. CA rollo, pp. 67-70.
13.Rollo, p. 9.
14.Id. at 9-10.
15.Id.
16.Supra note 3.
17. Records, p. 198.
18. CA rollo, pp. 77-78.
19.Supra note 2.
20. CA rollo, p. 142.
21.Rollo, pp. 14-17.
22.Rollo, pp. 30-33 & 34-38.
23. CA rollo, pp. 59-60.
24.Id. at 60-62.
25.Id. at 62-63.
26.Id. at pp. 99-117.
27.Id. at 118.
28.Id. at 120.
29.People v. Bongalon, 425 Phil. 96, 114 (2002) citing People v. Johnson, 401 Phil. 734, 750 (2000); People v. Chua Uy, 384 Phil. 70, 86 (2000).
30.Id. at 116.
31.Id.
32. 361 Phil. 595, 626-627 (1999).
33. 588 Phil. 247, 272 (2008).
34.Supra note 14.
35.People v. Ara, 623 Phil. 939, 953 (2009) citing Quinicot v. People, 608 Phil. 259, 275-276 (2009).
36.People v. Lua, 326 Phil. 556, 566 (1996).
37.People v. Corpuz, 310 Phil. 200, 209 (1995) citing People v. Gundran, 298-A Phil. 573, 585-586 (1993); People v. Mortos, 297 Phil. 31, 36 (1993); People v. Waggay, 291-A Phil. 786, 798-799 (1993); People v. Guibao, 291 Phil. 63, 70 (1993).