People v. Rago y Cabajar

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 252543. October 11, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.AMINODIN RAGO a.k.a. "EGLIE," and BERNADETTE RAGO y CABAJAR, accused-appellants.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated11 October 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 252543 (People of the Philippines v. Aminodin Rago a.k.a. "Eglie," and Bernadette Rago y Cabajar). — This is an appeal 1 on the December 5, 2019 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10216 affirming the November 17, 2017 Consolidated Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 193 of Marikina City, in Criminal Case Nos. 2017-5870-D-MK and 2017-5871-D-MK.

The RTC found accused-appellants Aminodin Rago (Aminodin) a.k.a. Eglie, and Bernadette Rago y Cabajar (Bernadette) guilty of Illegal Sale and Possession of Drugs in violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165), respectively, otherwise known as "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002." 4

Factual Antecedents:

On July 15, 2017, at around 10:00 in the morning, Police Officer (PO) 1 Tito Antiporta, Jr. (PO1 Antiporta) received an information from a confidential asset that a certain "Eglie," who was later identified as Aminodin, was selling illegal drugs at his house in Brgy. Tumana, Marikina City. 5 Upon the instruction of Chief of Police, Police Chief Inspector (PCI) Armando Buban (PCI Buban), PO1 Antiporta and the asset went to Aminodin's house to verify the report. Thereat, they saw the suspect talking and handing something to an individual who left afterwards. 6

PCI Buban thus immediately formed a buy-bust team composed of 15 members, including PO1 Antiporta who was designated as the poseur-buyer, and PO1 Edwin Lovendido (PO1 Lovendido) and PO1 Lyra Fornal (PO1 Fornal) as back-up. 7 PO1 Antiporta was given three pieces P100.00 bills as marked money. It was agreed that he should make a missed call to PCI Buban to signal that the sale of illegal drugs had been consummated. 8 PO1 Fornal then prepared and submitted the Pre-Operational Report and Coordination Form to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). 9

In the afternoon of the same day, the buy-bust team positioned themselves in the vicinity of the house of Aminodin. PO1 Antiporta approached Aminodin's house and saw him sitting inside beside Bernadette. 10 He then asked Aminodin, "Boss meron ka ba paiskor ako." 11 Aminodin responded, "Magkano ba iiskorin mo?". 12 He then asked Bernadette to get his pouch containing the items inside their room. Bernadette left to get a sky blue pouch which he gave to Aminodin. PO1 Antiporta then told Aminodin that he would buy P300.00 worth of drugs and gave the marked money. Aminodin took a plastic sachet suspected to be containing shabu from the pouch and handed it to PO1 Antiporta, who upon receipt placed it in his right front pocket. PO1 Antiporta then made a missed call to PCI Buban. He also introduced himself as a police officer to Aminodin and Bernadette and confiscated the pouch. 13 On the other hand, the other members of the buy-bust immediately approached them. 14

PO1 Antiporta then retrieved from his pocket the plastic sachet with purported shabu. Upon inspection of the pouch, he discovered seven pieces of plastic sachets containing suspected shabu and the three marked money. PO1 Antiporta immediately conducted the marking and inventory of the seized items at the crime scene, 15 to wit: CAIHTE

 

QUANTITY	DESCRIPTION
One (1) piece	Heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance suspected shabu marked as "AR-BB 7-15-17" with signature
Seven (7) pieces	Heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substances suspected to be shabu marked as "AR-1 7-15-17" to "AR-7 7-15-17" with respective signatures
One (1) piece	Pouch color sky blue marked as "AR-8 7-15-17" with signature
Three (3) pieces	Php100.00 bills that served as the marked money with serial nos. HZ609371, FM185067, and AI56219 16

 

The marking and inventory were made in the presence of the accused-appellants and the following witnesses: Brgy. Kagawad Jimmy Ceguerra and media representative Cesar Barquilla. The other police officers, on the other hand, photographed the contrabands. 17

Thereafter, the buy-bust team brought Aminodin and Bernadette to the police station. 18 Thereat, PO1 Antiporta prepared the Request for Laboratory Examination 19 and Chain of Custody Form. 20 He then turned over the seized items to the Eastern Police District Crime Laboratory, which was received by PO3 Diola for recording purposes. 21 PO3 Diola immediately turned over the specimens to PCI Margarita M. Libres (PCI Libres), the forensic chemist. 22

In the Physical Science Report No. MCSO-D-057-17 23 prepared by PCI Libres, all the seized items tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.

Consequently, on July 16, 2017, two separate Informations 24 were filed against Aminodin and Bernadette charging them with Illegal Sale and Possession of Drugs as penalized under Sections 5 and 11 of Article II of RA 9165, respectively, viz.:

CRIM. CASE NO. 587025(Illegal Possession of Drugs)

That on or about the 15th day of July 2017 in the City of Marikina, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, without being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and knowingly have in their possession, direct control and custody, of the following items:

a. One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.40 gram of white crystalline substance marked as "AR-1 7-15-17 with signature";

b. One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.47 gram of white crystalline substance marked as "AR-2 7-15-17 with signature";

c. One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.07 gram of white crystalline substance marked as "AR-3 7-15-17 with signature";

d. One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.48 gram of white crystalline substance marked as "AR-4 7-15-17 with signature";

e. One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.25 gram of white crystalline substance marked as "AR-5 7-15-17 with signature";

f. One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.11 gram of white crystalline substance marked as "AR-6 7-15-17 with signature"; and

g. One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.10 gram of white crystalline substance marked as "AR-7 7-15-17 with signature";

which after laboratory examination of the above-mentioned items were found to be positive for METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE, a dangerous drug, in violation of above-cited law.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 26

CRIM. CASE NO. 587127(Illegal Sale of Drugs)

That on or about the 15th day of July, 2017 in the City of Marikina, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, without being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and knowingly sell to PO1 TITO ANTIPORTA, JR., a poseur-buyer, one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.12 gram of white crystalline substance and eventually marked as "AR-BB 7-15-17 with signature," which after laboratory examination was found to be positive for METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law. DETACa

CONTRARY TO LAW. 28

Upon arraignment, Aminodin and Bernadette entered a plea of not guilty. 29 Trial then ensued.

Aminodin and Bernadette denied the commission of the crimes. They claimed that around 2:00 p.m. of July 15, 2017, several police officers suddenly barged inside their room. They ordered Aminodin to lie on the ground, and handcuffed him and Bernadette. The law enforcers searched their entire house and likewise frisked Aminodin without any warrant. They also ordered Aminodin and Bernadette to go downstairs where they saw plastic sachets laid on the table. The police officers then instructed the couple to sit beside the table and took their picture. Afterwards, they were brought and detained at the police station. 30

Ruling of the Regional Trial

In its November 17, 2017 Consolidated Decision, 31 the trial court found Aminodin and Bernadette to have conspired in selling and possessing shabu, a dangerous drug. The trial court held that the prosecution sufficiently established the presence of all the elements of Illegal Sale and Possession of shabu. The integrity and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drugs were likewise preserved as the chain of custody remained broken. 32

The fallo of the RTC Consolidated Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

In Criminal Case No. 2017-5871-D-MK, accused AMINODIN RAGO aka EGLIE and BERNADETTE RAGO y CABAJAR, are hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. They are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and the payment of a fine in the amount of five hundred thousand (Php500,000.00) pesos.

In Criminal Case No. 2017-5870-D-MK, accused AMINODIN RAGO aka EGLIE and BERNADETTE RAGO y CABAJAR, are hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165.

Considering that the amount of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride did not exceed five (5) grams, in accordance with paragraph No. 3, Section 11 of RA 9165, accused AMINODIN RAGO aka EGLIE and BERNADETTE RAGO y CABAJAR, are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine in the amount of three hundred thousand (P300,000.00) pesos.

The sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) confiscated from accused AMINODIN RAGO aka EGLIE and BERNADETTE RAGO y CABAJAR, are forfeited in favor of the government and ordered disposed in accordance with law.

SO ORDERED.33

Aggrieved, Aminodin and Bernadette appealed 34 to the CA ascribing the following errors:

I

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS GUILTY OF SECTIONS 5 AND 11, ARTICLE II OF R.A. NO. 9165, NOTWITHSTANDING THE POLICE OFFICERS' NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS UNDER SECTION 21 OF R.A. NO. 9165, AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO. 10640, AND THEIR FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY AND IDENTITY OF THE SEIZED ITEMS.

II

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS GUILTY OF THE OFFENSES CHARGED NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE THEIR GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. 35

Aminodin and Bernadette averred that the chain of custody was broken because of the following procedural lapses: (a) it was not shown how the seized items were kept safe from contamination since PO1 Antiporta did not state if they were placed inside an evidence bag as required under Section 1 (A.1.7) of the IRR of RA 9165; 36 (b) there was no proof that the insulating witnesses were indeed a media representative and a duly elected public official; 37 (c) the Inventory of Evidence Form 38 only indicated the name of Aminodin and was not signed by him and Bernadette; hence, it was not established that the contrabands were indeed seized from them; 39 (d) the prosecution neither stipulated on the contents of nor presented PO3 Diola as a witness, 40 and the evidence custodian of the laboratory who received the seized items from PO1 Antiporta and recorded the same before being turned over to PCI Libres for examination. 41 aDSIHc

Aminodin and Bernadette further argued that the mere fact that she handed the purse containing illicit drugs to him was insufficient to prove conspiracy between them. 42

Ruling of the Court of Appeals:

In its December 5, 2019 Decision, 43 the CA found no error in the findings of the RTC. It held that the prosecution sufficiently established the elements of Illegal Possession and Sale of Dangerous Drugs. 44 The positive identification made by PO1 Antiporta that Aminodin and Bernadette were the ones who sold to him the shabu prevailed in comparison to the latter's defense of denial. 45 After the sale was consummated, the accused were immediately apprehended and searched resulting in the discovery of several sachets of shabu in their possession. The CA also opined that Aminodin was in actual possession of the sachets of shabu found inside the purse. 46 On the other hand, Bernadette, being the wife of Aminodin and residing in the same house, was in constructive possession of the said drugs as she can exercise dominion or control over the same. 47

Anent the chain of custody, the CA likewise agreed with the RTC that it was unbroken. 48 Aminodin and Bernadette refused to sign the inventory receipt as noted in the same; hence, the absence of their signatures therein. 49 Bernadette, during trial, also confirmed the presence of the insulating witnesses. She even identified the barangay kagawad in a photograph taken during the inventory. 50 Lastly, the non-presentation of PO3 Diola as a witness was not fatal especially since the parties already stipulated that the items confiscated from Aminodin and Bernadette by PO1 Antiporta were the same specimens that were examined and tested positive for shabu by PCI Libres and presented before the trial court. 51 Considering that the prosecution sufficiently established all the links in the chain of custody, the integrity of the seized items had been duly preserved. 52

The dispositive portion of the CA Decision states:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present appeal is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The Consolidated Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Marikina, Branch 193 in Criminal Case Nos. 2017-5870-D-MK and 2017-5871-D-MK finding the accused-appellants AMINODIN RAGO A.K.A. "EGLIE" and BERNADETTE RAGO y CABAJAR guilty beyond reasonable doubt for illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs under Sections 5 and 11(3), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 is hereby AFFIRMED IN TOTO.

SO ORDERED.53

Hence, the instant appeal. 54

Issue

The main issue in this case is whether or not accused-appellants Aminodin and Bernadette are guilty of the crimes charged.

Our Ruling

The appeal is impressed with merit.

It is a settled rule that the Court accords great weight and respect to the factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the appellate court. 55 They are deemed final and conclusive when supported by evidence of record. 56 Absent any facts and circumstances that have been overlooked which could substantially affect the outcome of the case, the Court will uphold the judgment of the lower court. 57

We have carefully reviewed the records of the case and found compelling reasons to reverse the judgment of the CA.

For a successful prosecution of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, the following elements must be duly established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place, and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence. 58

On the other hand, the elements of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11 of the same law which must be proved are as follows: (1) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug, (2) such possession is not authorized by law, and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug. 59

In both cases, the drugs themselves are the corpus delicti of the crimes which must be established beyond reasonable doubt. 60 The prosecution should therefore show that the drugs seized from the accused are the same as those presented before the court during the trial. 61

Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, 62 applies in this case since Aminodin and Bernadette allegedly committed the crimes on July 15, 2017. The rule states:

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 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. ETHIDa

(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination;

(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done under oath by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued within twenty-four (24) hours after the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of the dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the time frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided, however, That a final certification shall be issued on the completed forensic laboratory examination on the same within the next twenty-four (24) hours;

The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) further provides:

Section 21. (a) The apprehending officer/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 non-compliance 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.

(b) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination; and

(c) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done under oath by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued within twenty-four (24) hours after the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, that when the volume of the dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the time frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided, however, that a final certification shall be issued on the completed forensic laboratory examination on the same within the next twenty-four (24) hours. 63

The prosecution must establish the apprehending officers' compliance with each link in the chain of custody, to wit:

First, the seizure and marking 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. 64

Several unexplained gaps in the chain of custody are apparent in this case.

First, there is no evidence on record indicating that the seized items were placed in an evidence bag or container upon confiscation, and after the marking thereof was conducted. It is imperative that after marking the seized items, they must be placed in an envelope or an evidence bag unless their type and quantity require a different manner of handling and/or container. 65 The evidence bag or container must be signed by the handling officer and should be turned over to the next officer in the chain of custody. 66 Due to the susceptible nature of illegal drugs, like the shabu in this case, placing the seized items in an evidence bag ensures that they will not be subjected to tampering, contamination or switching. 67 As aptly held in Ramos v. People: 68

Aside from marking, the seized items should be placed in an envelope or an evidence bag unless the type and quantity of these items require a different type of handling and/or container. The evidence bag or container shall accordingly be signed by the handling officer and turned over to the next officer in the chain of custody. The purpose of placing the seized item in an envelope or an evidence bag is to ensure that the item is secured from tampering, especially when the seized item is susceptible to alteration or damage. 69 [Citation Omitted.] cSEDTC

Second, the sole testimony of PO1 Antiporta lacked details on how he handled and stored the seized items while in transit to the police station and prior to their turn over to the forensic chemist. As a person who had custody of the seized items, PO1 Antiporta should have narrated the precautionary measures he took to ensure that the integrity and evidentiary value of the same were duly preserved. 70 He should have declared their condition upon delivery to the laboratory for examination. 71 Hence, it cannot be concluded with certainty that the seized items were the same as those presented for laboratory examination and eventually in court. 72

Third, there was a discrepancy as to who personally received the seized items when they were turned over to the laboratory examination. PO1 Antiporta claimed that he personally submitted the seized items to the laboratory for examination and such were personally received by PCI Libres, the forensic chemist, 73 as shown in the Chain of Custody Form. 74 However, based on the affidavit 75 of PO3 Dexter DR Alvarez, the investigator on duty, the seized items were received by PO3 Diola from PO1 Antiporta for recording purposes. 76 It was only afterwards that the specimens were turned over to PCI Libres for qualitative examination. 77 These contrasting statements were never explained by the prosecution witness. Worse, the prosecution did not present PO3 Diola to testify on the characteristics and the handling of the seized items when he received the same. Such gap, all the more, raised doubt on the integrity of the confiscated shabu.

Last, there was also no proof on how PCI Libres handled, stored and preserved the seized drugs before, during and after the qualitative examination.

In People v. Cabuhay, 78 the Court laid down the matters that must be included in the parties' stipulations in case the testimony of the forensic chemist has been dispensed with:

In People v. Pajarin, 79 the Court ruled that in case of a stipulation by the parties to dispense with the attendance and testimony of the forensic chemist, it should be stipulated that the forensic chemist would have testified that he had taken the precautionary steps required to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item, thus: (1) that the forensic chemist received the seized article as marked, properly sealed, and intact; (2) that he resealed it after examination of the content; and (3) that he placed his own marking on the same to ensure that it could not be tampered with pending trial. 80 (Emphasis supplied)

The above required stipulations are wanting in this case. There is likewise a dearth of evidence to show whether the seized drugs remained in the custody of PCI Libres after their examination until their presentation in court. Noticeably, the parties only made general sweeping stipulations that PCI Libres: (a) received a request for laboratory examination of the seized items and the said specimens from PO1 Antiporta; (b) conducted qualitative and quantitative examinations thereon which yielded a positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu; (c) reduced her findings into writing and prepared the Physical Science Report No. MCSO-D-057-17; (d) can identify and attest that the items presented before the court are the same as those turned over by PO1 Antiporta and subsequently examined. 81 This constitutes a serious breach of the fourth link of the chain of custody. 82

All told, the chain of custody has been broken, which the prosecution failed to adduce any justifiable reason for its non-compliance by the apprehending officers. Thus, the acquittal of Aminodin and Bernadette is in order.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The December 5, 2019 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10216 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

Accused-appellants Aminodin Rago a.k.a. Eglie and Bernadette Rago y Cabajar are ACQUITTED of Illegal Sale and Possession of Drugs under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.

The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City and the Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women, Mandaluyong City, are ORDERED to cause the immediate release of Aminodin Rago and Bernadette Rago, respectively, unless they are being held in custody for any other lawful reason, and to REPORT to this Court the actions taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.

Let an entry of final judgment be immediately issued.

SO ORDERED." (SAJ. Perlas-Bernabe, on Official Leave; J. Hernando, Acting Chairperson per S.O. No. 2846 dated October 6, 2021).

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 17-19.

2.Id. at 3-16. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr., and concurred in by Associate Justices Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. and Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas.

3. CA rollo, pp. 58-68. Penned by Presiding Judge Alice C. Gutierrez.

4.Id. at 73.

5. Records, p. 11.

6.Id.

7.Id.

8.Id.

9.Id.

10.Id.

11.Id.

12.Id.

13.Id.

14.Id.

15.Id. at 12.

16.Id. at 18.

17.Id. at 23-24.

18.Id. at 12.

19.Id. at 13.

20.Id. at 17.

21.Id. at 27.

22.Id.

23.Id. at 14.

24.Id. at 2-6.

25.Id. at 2-4.

26.Id. at 2-3.

27.Id. at 5-6.

28.Id. at 5.

29.Id. at 39.

30.Rollo, p. 7.

31.Supra note 3.

32. CA rollo, pp. 66-67.

33.Id. at 68.

34.Id. at 9-10.

35.Id. at 37.

36.Id. at 45-46.

37.Id. at 47-50.

38. Records, p. 18.

39. CA rollo, pp. 47-48.

40.Id. at 50-51.

41.Id.

42.Id. at 52-53.

43.Supra note 2.

44.Rollo, p. 15.

45.Id. at 13.

46.Id. at 9-10.

47.Id. at 10-11.

48.Id. at 12.

49.Id.

50.Id.

51.Id. at 13.

52.Id.

53.Id. at 15.

54.Supra note 1.

55.People v. Gerola, 813 Phil. 1055, 1063 (2017).

56.Portuguez v. People, 750 Phil. 767, 780 (2015).

57.Id.

58.People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 229053, July 17, 2019.

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

60.People v. Nocum, G.R. No. 239905, January 20, 2021.

61.People v. Galisim, G.R. No. 231305, September 11, 2019.

62. 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."

63. Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165, IRR of RA 9165, August 30, 2002; See People v. Sorrera, G.R. No. 251110, February 3, 2021.

64.People v. Ordinario, G.R. No. 251436, March 1, 2021, citing People v. Victoria, G.R. No. 238613, August 19, 2019.

65.People v. Martinez, 652 Phil. 347, 377 (2010), citing People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214, 220 (2008).

66.Id.

67.Ramos v. People, 826 Phil. 663, 684 (2018).

68.Id.

69.Id. at 683-684.

70.People v. Labay, G.R. No. 251444, March 3, 2021, citing People v. Gajo, G.R. No. 217026, January 22, 2018.

71.Id.

72. See Izon v. People, G.R. No. 222509, March 3, 2021, People v. Lacdan, G.R. No. 232161, August 14, 2019.

73. Records, p. 12.

74.Id. at 17.

75.Id. at 27.

76.Id.

77.Id.

78.People v. Cabuhay, 836 Phil. 903 (2018).

79. 654 Phil. 461 (2011).

80.Supra note 78 at 919.

81. CA rollo, pp. 60-61.

82.People v. Kasan, G.R. No. 238334, July 3, 2019.