FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 245488. September 16, 2020.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ABELINO REDONDO y BRINOSA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated September 16, 2020 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 245488 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, versusABELINO REDONDO y BRINOSA, accused-appellant.
RESOLUTION
This is an Appeal 1 filed pursuant to Section 13, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court from the Decision 2 dated February 20, 2018 (assailed Decision) and the Resolution 3 dated August 13, 2018 of the Court of Appeals, First Division (CA), in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07207. The assailed Decision affirmed the Decision 4 dated October 10, 2014 rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City, Branch 75 (trial court), in Criminal Case No. 323-12, which found accused-appellant Abelino Redondo y Brinosa (Redondo) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9165, 5 otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002." 6
The accusatory portion of the Information against Redondo dated May 2, 2012 reads:
"That on or about the first (1st) day of May 2012, in the City of Olongapo, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly deliver and sell to PO2 Wilmon Jaudian P200.00 (SN-HE248062 and RE728552) worth of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, otherwise known as ["shabu"], a dangerous drug, weighing One Hundred Fifteen Thousandths (0.115) of a gram placed in one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet.
CONTRARY TO LAW." 7
Upon arraignment on July 7, 2012, Redondo entered a plea of "not guilty" with the assistance of counsel. 8 Per the trial court's Pre-Trial Order, only the identity of Redondo was admitted as the same person charged and arraigned under the Information. 9 Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
The Facts
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution's witnesses, 1) Police Officer 2 Wilmon Jaudian (PO2 Jaudian); 2) PO2 Ryan Garcia (PO2 Garcia); 3) Senior Police Officer 3 Allan delos Reyes (SPO3 delos Reyes); and Police Senior Inspector Ma. Cecilia G. Tang (PSI Tang), 10 narrated the following facts:
The City Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Team (CAID-SOT) conducted a series of surveillances of New Kababae, Olongapo City, following several reports of drug trafficking activities of Redondo and one Homer Gordon y Mapula (Gordon) therein. At one point, Redondo offered to sell shabu to PO2 Jaudian, after the latter was introduced by a Confidential Informant (CI) as a user. PO2 Jaudian refused but said that he would come back. 11
Consequently, a buy-bust operation was organized wherein PO2 Jaudian was designated as poseur-buyer, PO2 Garcia as frisker, while the rest of the buy-bust team composed of SPO3 delos Reyes, Police Officer 1 12 Owen Cruz (PO1 Cruz), one PO1 Moran and Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Agent William Dulay (Agent Dulay). On May 1, 2012, at around 5 o'clock in the afternoon, the team went to New Kababae to carry out the buy-bust operation. 13
Upon arrival, PO2 Jaudian went to a nearby store where he drank softdrinks while the rest of the team positioned themselves strategically around the vicinity. After some time, Redondo arrived and asked PO2 Jaudian, "iiskor ka ba?", to which the latter agreed. But Redondo, noticing the vehicles passing by, said, "baka may kalaban dito," and led PO2 Jaudian to an alley about 10 meters away from the store. 14
There, Redondo gave PO2 Jaudian one sachet of shabu in exchange for two P100.00 bills (marked money). Suddenly, Gordon arrived and sat beside Redondo and PO2 Jaudian. PO2 Jaudian saw Gordon fixing two pieces of foil in his hand. At that point, PO2 Jaudian gave SPO3 delos Reyes a missed call, which was the pre-arranged signal for the rest of the team to respond. Members of the buy-bust team then rushed to the scene. 15
SPO2 Garcia frisked Redondo and Gordon. He recovered from them the marked money and two aluminum foils, respectively. 16 PO2 Jaudian remained in possession of the sachet of shabu. The buy-bust team immediately brought Redondo and Gordon to the police station. 17
The next day, on May 2, 2012, 18 PO2 Jaudian marked the sachet of shabu with his initials, "WJ" 19 while PO2 Garcia marked the two aluminum foils with his initials, "RG." 20 They then turned over the seized items to SPO3 delos Reyes, who, in turn, marked each item with his own initials, "ADR." 21 The markings were done at the police station 22 and in the presence of Redondo, Gordon, and the police officers. 23
SPO3 delos Reyes then prepared an Inventory Receipt of the seized items and photographed them in the presence of Redondo, Gordon, a Department of Justice (DOJ) representative, and a barangay official. 24 However, Redondo refused to sign the Inventory Receipt. 25 A media representative was invited but was unavailable. 26 SPO3 delos Reyes likewise prepared a Request for Laboratory Examination, which, together with the seized items, he delivered to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory. 27
PSI Tang, the Forensic Chemist, testified that the examination on the seized substance yielded a positive result for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu. PSI Tang's findings were reflected in her Chemistry Report. 28
Version of the Defense
The defense called to the stand Redondo who narrated the following facts:
Redondo arrived home from work on board his motorcycle when a van suddenly stopped in front of his house. Police officers alighted the van, including PO2 Jaudian and PO2 Garcia, and arrested the persons having a drinking session inside Redondo's compound. Redondo approached them and was, as well, arrested. When Redondo asked why he was being taken, the police officers told him that he would just have to explain at the police station after which he would be allowed to go home. 29
Redondo and six other persons were detained without being informed of the reason for their detention. The following day, four of the detainees were released, leaving behind Redondo and Gordon. When Redondo asked PO2 Jaudian and PO2 Garcia why he was still being held, the former answered that they recovered illegal drugs from him and that he would be charged therefor. He was forced to sign an Inventory Receipt and Chain of Custody document after he was hit at the side of his body. However, he refused. 30
The Ruling of the trial court
In the Decision 31 dated October 10, 2014, the trial court found Redondo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5 of R.A. 9165 and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of P500,000.00 plus cost.
The trial court held that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were more credible than that of the defense and that there was no showing of ill-motive on the part of the police officers. The trial court concluded that the drug transaction took place as narrated by PO2 Jaudian, the poseur buyer. 32 Moreover, the trial court held that the chain of custody as required by law and jurisprudence was established and that the movement of the seized items was "almost perfect." 33 The trial court declared that the integrity of the evidence is presumed to be preserved, unless there is a showing of bad faith or ill will, or that the evidence was tampered with. Consequently, the defense failed to discharge its burden of overcoming this presumption. 34
On the other hand, the trial court likewise found Gordon, who was also charged in the same buy-bust operation, guilty of violation of Section 12 of R.A. 9165 and sentenced him to imprisonment of six months and one day to four years and a fine. 35
The trial court disposed of the case, thus:
"WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. 323-12, the Court finds ABELINO REDONDO y BRINOSA GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 5, R.A. 9165 and sentences him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00 plus cost, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency;
2. In Criminal Case No. 324-12, the Court finds HOMER GORDON y MAPULA GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 12, R.A. 9165 and sentences him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and to pay a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (Php10,000.00).
Both accused shall also suffer the accessory penalties under Section 35, RA 9165, while ABELINO REDONDO shall be credited in the service of his sentence with the full time during which he has undergone preventive imprisonment subject to the conditions imposed under Art. 29 of the Revised Penal Code as amended.
The [shabu] sachet marked Exh. 'H' and drug paraphernalia marked Exhibits 'H-1' and 'H-2' of the Prosecution are ordered confiscated in favor of the government and to be disposed of in accordance with law.
SO DECIDED." 36
Redondo appealed to the CA via a Notice of Appeal. 37 He filed a Brief 38 dated November 7, 2015, while the People, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed a Brief 39 dated June 3, 2016. Redondo then filed a Reply 40 dated July 6, 2016.
The Ruling of the CA
In the assailed Decision, 41 the CA affirmed the trial court's Decision as follows:
WHEREFORE, the Appeal is DENIED. The October 10, 2014 decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 75, Olongapo City in Criminal Case No. 323-12 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.42
The CA found that all of the elements to secure a conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 are present. The prosecution established the commission of the crime by Redondo because the sale transaction was consummated. Per the CA, the delay in the physical inventory and photographing, which were conducted only on May 2, 2012, or a day after the buy-bust operation, was sufficiently explained — that the officers had to wait for the availability of the mandatory witnesses and despite this, the media representative invited still failed to attend on May 2, 2012. In other words, the departure from Section 21 of R.A. 9165 was justifiably accounted for.
In any case, said the CA, non-compliance with Section 21 is not fatal as what is important is that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. The CA agreed with the trial court that the integrity of the evidence is rebuttably presumed preserved. Likewise, testimonies of police officers carry with them the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions. 43
Hence, this appeal.
Redondo filed a Supplemental Brief 44 dated October 21, 2019, while the People filed a Manifestation 45 dated August 7, 2018 foregoing the filing of a supplemental brief as the Brief filed before the CA already presents all the arguments in the present case.
Issue
The main question for resolution is whether Redondo is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of sale of illegal drugs as defined and punished under Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165.
The Court's Ruling
The Court resolves in Redondo's favor.
Redondo was charged with and convicted of selling dangerous illegal drugs, thus, violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165. The elements of selling illegal drugs in buy-bust operations are: 1) that the transaction or sale took place between the accused and the poseur buyer; and 2) that the dangerous drugs subject of the transaction or sale is presented in court as evidence of the corpus delicti. 46
The corpus delicti — the body of the crime, the core of which is the confiscated illicit drug — like the crime itself, must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. 47 Hence, proving beyond reasonable doubt the corpus delicti becomes a constitutional imperative, 48 as non-compliance creates doubt on the very guilt of the accused. It is important that the State establish with moral certainty the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti. 49 There must be a showing of an unbroken chain of custody over the same and an accounting for each link in the chain, from the moment the illegal drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence of the crime. 50
Generally, the prosecution must establish four links in the chain of custody of the seized items: first, their marking by the apprehending officer; second, their turnover by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, their turnover by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, their turnover and submission by the forensic chemist to the court. 51
The first link, the marking, is the placing by the arresting officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials and signature on the items after they have been seized. 52 It is the starting point in the custodial link; hence, this must be made immediately upon confiscation, or at the earliest reasonably available opportunity, 53 as succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. 54
The prompt marking is especially vital when the processes succeeding the marking — the physical inventory and photographing — are made, not immediately upon confiscation at the place of arrest and seizure, but only after a while at the police station. This is to ensure that the items seized from the accused are the same ones later subjected to inventory and photographing. The Court held in People v. Beran: 55
What Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rules do not expressly specify is the matter of marking of the seized items in warrantless seizures to ensure that the evidence seized upon apprehension is the same evidence subjected to inventory and photography when these activities are undertaken at the police station rather than at the place of arrest. Consistency with the "chain of custody" rule requires that the marking of the seized items — to truly ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence — should be done (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator [and] (2) immediately upon confiscation. This step initiates the process of protecting innocent persons from dubious and concocted searches, and of protecting as well the apprehending officers from harassment suits based on planting of evidence under Section 29 and on allegations of robbery or theft.56
The immediate marking in the presence of the accused is crucial and indispensable because succeeding handlers of the seized illegal drugs will use that marking as reference. It thereby forestalls switching, planting or contamination of evidence by separating the seized items from other materials, from the time of their confiscation until the case is terminated. 57 In other words, it ensures that the illegal drug confiscated from the accused is the same as the substance presented in evidence during trial to prove his or her guilt.
Next to the marking are the procedures of physical inventory and photographing of the seized illegal items. Section 21 of R.A. 9165 expresses certain simple and straightforward parameters which police officers must follow to ensure the unbroken chain of custody, thus:
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. — x x x
(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[.] (Underscoring supplied)
Further, Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. 9165 provides that the physical inventory and photographing must 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.
Strict compliance with the prescribed procedures is necessary because the illegal drug has the unique characteristic of becoming indistinct and not readily identifiable, thereby generating the possibility of tampering, alteration or substitution by accident or otherwise. 58 This is especially true where the quantity of the illegal drugs is miniscule, such as in the present case, since the same is highly susceptible to planting, tampering, or alteration. 59
The law, however, does not mandate absolute fidelity to the requirements at all times. In the exceptional cases under the saving clause in the IRR, non-compliance is allowed, provided the following are present: (1) the existence of justifiable grounds to allow departure from the rule on strict compliance; and (2) the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team. 60 In these exceptional cases, the seizure and custody over the confiscated items shall not be rendered void and invalid. 61
Upon an exhaustive examination of the records, the Court finds that the police officers failed to observe the requirements of the law in preserving the chain of custody. This casts reasonable doubt on the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti, and, thus, on the very guilt of Redondo.
First, the seized illegal items were not marked immediately upon seizure and confiscation at the place of arrest. Rather, the marking was made only at the police station one whole dayafter the seizure was done at the buy-bust operation. In the intervening time, the unmarked illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia remained in the custody of PO2 Jaudian and PO2 Garcia, respectively. 62 However, no details were offered as to where the unmarked seized items were placed or what was done to them while in the custody of said police officers before they were brought to the police station for initial custodial requirements. Neither was there any explanation offered for this failure in prompt marking.
Hence, a significant but unexplained break in the chain had been made — thereby negating any assurance against switching, planting or contamination. The time and distance from the scene of the arrest before the drug was marked are too substantial that the alleged evidence could have well been tampered with in the interim. Assuming that the illegal drug which went into the chain is the same drug seized from Redondo's person, i.e., assuming it was not planted in the first place, there remains that unfortunate possibility of switching while it was in PO2 Jaudian's possession.
Second, the police officers failed to physically inventory and photograph the seized items immediately after seizure and confiscation at the place of arrest. The police officers conducted the same, like the marking, one whole day after the buy-bust operation at the police station. 63
Third, there was failure to comply with the mandatory three-witness rule. Only two — the DOJ representative and barangay official — of the three witnesses required by Section 21 attended the physical inventory and photographing of the seized items. No media representative witnessed the same.
As mentioned earlier, these lapses in observing the initial custodial requirements in illegal drugs cases heavily taint the evidence obtained, unless such departures fall under the saving clause of the IRR, which requires: (1) the existence of justifiable grounds to allow such departure; and (2) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team. 64 When these two requisites concur, the confiscated items are not be rendered void and invalid, despite the failure of the buy-bust team to strictly observe Section 21. 65
On the first requisite, the prosecution must first recognize any lapses on the part of the apprehending officers and thereafter explain the cited justifiable grounds. 66 Moreover, the justifiable grounds must be credible and there must be a showing of a genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses. 67 Mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses, are unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance. 68
The reason for this is that buy-bust operations are, by their very nature, planned activities. Police officers are ordinarily given sufficient time — beginning from the moment they have received the information about the activities of the accused until the time of his or her arrest — to prepare for a buy-bust operation and consequently, make the necessary arrangements beforehand, knowing full well that they would have to strictly comply with the set procedure prescribed in Section 21. 69
In the present case, the prosecution, while acknowledging the police officers' lapses, explains that the buy-bust team had to wait for the availability of the witnesses — as in this case, the media representative. Hence, the one-day delay in the physical inventory and photographing. 70 Unfortunately, the media representative remained unavailable and, thus, still failed to witness the belated conduct of these activities on May 2, 2012. 71
The Court rejects these flimsy excuses and takes exception to the CA's ruling that they are "sufficient justifiable grounds for minor deviations from the procedure." 72
The prosecution itself claims that the entrapment of Redondo was the result of prior numerous reports and about six surveillances. 73 In other words, it was clearly a carefully planned operation. Still, the team failed to ensure the presence of the mandatory witnesses immediately after confiscation and arrest. In fact, even at the belated physical inventory and photographing one whole day from such confiscation, the team still failed to have any media representative as witness. Worse, still, the prosecution is using this failure to timely secure witnesses to justify its delay in the conduct of physical inventory and photographing. Given the time it took leading to the planned buy-bust operation, the team had opportunity to comply with the mandatory three-witness rule.
Surely, there was an ample pool of representatives from the DOJ, barangay, and media who could have stood as witnesses or the entrapment itself could have well been scheduled on a day when the witnesses were sure to attend. The prosecution's empty claim of unavailability of the witnesses who they supposedly invited cannot stand. There was neither allegation nor proof that serious efforts were made to ensure the attendance of the witnesses at the entrapment site.
In sum, the unjustified lapses of the police officers in complying with the initial custodial requirements in buy-bust operations create more than reasonable doubt on the guilt of Redondo. It leaves the Court without any guarantee as to the integrity of the corpus delicti other than the self-serving assurances of the police officers. This is precisely the situation that R.A. 9165 seeks to prevent. 74
Unfortunately, the trial court and the CA glossed over these irregularities and found moral certainty in the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti and, hence, in the conviction of Redondo. These courts relied, among others, on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions of the police authorities and the presumption that the integrity of the evidence obtained was preserved 75 According to the courts, Redondo failed to discharge his burden to defeat these initial presumptions.
This is a wrong premise. Time and again, the Court has held that the presumption of innocence of the accused, being a constitutional guarantee, is accorded a higher premium versus the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the police officers and the consequent presumption of the evidence's integrity, which are but rules of evidence. 76 This is especially true in cases where the police officers commit obvious and unexplained lapses in complying with the requirements provided under the law. In other words, apart from the presumption of innocence being stronger, the presumption of regularity is rebuttable by affirmative evidence of irregularity or of any failure to perform a duty. 77 Thus, the Court has held:
Presuming that the members of the buy-bust team regularly performed their duty was patently bereft of any factual and legal basis. We remind the lower courts that the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty could not prevail over the stronger presumption of innocence favoring the accused. Otherwise, the constitutional guarantee of the accused being presumed would be held subordinate to a mere rule of evidence allocating the burden of evidence. Where, like here, the proof adduced against the accused has not even overcome the presumption of innocence, the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty could not be a factor to adjudge the accused guilty of the crime charged.
Moreover, the regularity of the performance of their duty could not be properly presumed in favor of the policemen because the records were replete with indicia of their serious lapses. As a rule, a presumed fact like the regularity of the performance by a police officer must be inferred only from an established basic fact, not plucked out from thin air. To say it differently, it is the established basic fact that triggers the presumed fact of regular performance. Where there is any hint of irregularity committed by the police officers in arresting the accused and thereafter, several of which we have earlier noted, there can be no presumption of regularity of performance in their favor.78
Here, the buy-bust team cannot be credited in its favor the presumption of regularity because of its blatant and unjustified disregard of the initial custodial requirements under the law. More so, this cannot defeat the constitutional presumption of Redondo's innocence. Hence, such innocence must be upheld and Redondo must be acquitted based on reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated February 20, 2018 of the Court of Appeals, First Division, in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07207, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Abelino Redondo y Brinosa is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless he is being lawfully held for another cause.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. The said Director is ORDERED to REPORT to this Court within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution the action he has taken. Copies shall also be furnished to the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for his information.
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. 37-41.
2.Id. at 3-36. Penned by Associate Justice Carmelita Salandanan Manahan and concurred in by Associate Justices Romeo F. Barza and Stephen C. Cruz.
3. CA rollo, pp. 218-220. Penned by Associate Justice Carmelita Salandanan Manahan and concurred in by Associate Justices Romeo F. Barza and Stephen C. Cruz.
4.Id. at 66-75. Penned by Judge Raymond C. Viray.
5. Sec. 5 of R.A. 9165 provides:
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.
xxx xxx xxx
6. Entitled "AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on June 7, 2002.
7.Rollo, p. 5.
8.Id.
9.Id.
10.Id.
11.Id. at 6.
12. "PO2" in some parts of the records.
13.Rollo, p. 6.
14.Id. at 6-7.
15.Id. at 7.
16.Id. at 8.
17.Id.
18.Id. at 9.
19.Supra note 15.
20.Id.
21.Id. at 9.
22.Id.
23.Supra note 16.
24.Id. at 7-9.
25.Supra note 18.
26.Id.
27.Id.
28.Id. at 10.
29.Id. at 10-11.
30.Id. at 11.
31.Supra note 4.
32. CA rollo, pp. 71-72.
33.Id. at 73-74.
34.Id. at 74.
35.Id. at 75.
36.Id. at 75. Emphasis in the original.
37.Rollo, pp. 37-41.
38. CA rollo, pp. 38-65.
39.Id. at 105-126.
40.Id. at 129-137.
41.Supra note 2.
42.Rollo, p. 35. Emphasis omitted.
43.Id. at 20-35.
44.Id. at 60-74.
45.Id. at 52-54.
46.People v. Gonzales, 708 Phil. 121, 127 (2013) citing People v. Kamad, G.R. No. 174198, January 19, 2010, 610 SCRA 295, 303.
47.People v. Cayas, G.R. No. 206888, July 4, 2016, 795 SCRA 459, 466 citing People v. Capuno, G.R. No. 185715, January 19, 2011, 640 SCRA 233, 247-248.
48.See People v. Royol, G.R. No. 224297, February 13, 2019, 893 SCRA 54, 66.
49.See People v. Del Mundo, 818 Phil. 575, 585 (2017) citing People v. Gayoso, 808 Phil. 19, 30 (2017) and People v. Lorenzo, 633 Phil. 393, 403 (2010).
50.People v. Crispo, 828 Phil. 416, 429 (2018).
51.See People v. Villarta, 828 Phil. 259 (2018).
52.People v. Gayoso, supra note 49 at 32.
53.People v. Sabdula, 733 Phil. 85, 95 (2014).
54.People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 232 (2015).
55. 724 Phil. 788 (2014).
56.Id. at 819-820. Emphasis supplied.
57.See People v. Lumaya, 827 Phil. 473, 489-490 (2018).
58.People v. Nepomuceno, G.R. No. 216062, September 19, 2018, 880 SCRA 440, 451-452.
59.People v. Señeres, Jr., G.R. No. 231008, November 5, 2018, 884 SCRA 172, 192.
60. Sec. 21 (a), Article II of the IRR.
61.Id.
62.Rollo, pp. 7-9.
63. CA rollo, p. 69.
64. Sec. 21 (a) of the IRR.
65.Id.
66.People v. Cayas, G.R. No. 206888, July 4, 2016, 795 SCRA 459, 469.
67.People v. Patacsil, G.R. No. 234052, August 6, 2018, 876 SCRA 348, 367.
68.Id.
69.Id.
70. CA rollo, p. 69.
71.Rollo, p. 32.
72.Id.
73. CA rollo, pp. 67-68.
74.People v. Que, 824 Phil. 882, 899 (2018).
75.Rollo, p. 34.
76.People v. Arposeple, 821 Phil. 340, 369 (2017).
77.Id.
78.People v. Malana, G.R. No. 233747, December 5, 2018, 888 SCRA 573, 595-596. Emphasis and underscoring supplied.