THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 248525. September 16, 2020.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. LAILA DELGANTE REMEGIO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated September 16, 2020, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 248525 (People of the Philippines v. Laila Delgante Remegio). — The Court resolves to NOTE the letter dated August 5, 2020 of CISupt. Virginia S. Mangawit, Acting Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women, Bureau of Corrections, Mandaluyong City, confirming the confinement therein of accused-appellant since September 23, 2012.
This is an appeal 1 seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision 2 dated March 26, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02076. The assailed Decision of the CA affirmed the Decision 3 dated May 25, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Bacolod City, Branch 47, finding accused-appellant Laila Delgante Remegio (Remegio) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002." 4
Remegio was charged with violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. 9165. 5 However, the RTC dismissed Criminal Case No. 05-27545 for violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 and Remegio was acquitted on reasonable doubt. 6 The prosecution's failure to present Police Officer 2 Alain S. Sonido (PO2 Sonido) — the police officer who seized the evidence subject of Search Warrant No. 009-2005 — created a gap in the links of the chain of custody. Hence, the present appeal. 7
The accusatory portion of the Information charging Remegio with violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 reads as follows:
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 05-27544
That on or about the 2nd day of February 2005, in the City of Bacolod, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the herein accused, not being authorized by law to sell, administer, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to a police poseur-buyer one (1) heat-sealed plastic packet containing 0.02 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as Shabu, in violation of the aforementioned law.
Act contrary to law. 8
Remegio filed a Motion for Preliminary Investigation 9 on February 14, 2005. The RTC in its Order 10 dated February 24, 2005 granted the motion and deferred Remegio's arraignment. In a Resolution 11 dated July 11, 2005, the Office of the City Prosecutor, Bacolod City, found probable cause to support Remegio's indictment. 12
When arraigned, Remegio pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged against her. 13 During pre-trial conference, the following were stipulated: (1) that on February 2, 2005 at 5:50 a.m., police armed with Search Warrant No. 009-2005 issued by Judge Napoleon S. Diamante raided Remegio's house located at Purok Mahigugma-on, Barangay (Brgy.) 22, Bacolod City; and (2) that Remegio was arrested without a warrant during the conduct of a buy-bust operation and the search warrant was implemented thereafter. Trial on the merits then ensued. 14
The prosecution presented Police Senior Inspector Alexis Abinion Guinanao (PSI Guinanao) and Police Officer 2 Ma. Liza Bravo-Aliposa (PO2 Bravo-Aliposa) as its witnesses. 15 On the other hand, Remegio and Brgy. Captain Rommel Diaz (Brgy. Capt. Diaz) testified for the defense. 16
The prosecution's evidence established that on January 14, 2005, a reliable asset called SPO4 Ernesto Gonzales (SPO4 Gonzales) — head of the City Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Group (CAIDSOTG) of Bacolod City Police Office — and informed him that Remegio was selling suspected shabu. 17 SPO4 Gonzales instructed PO2 Bravo-Aliposa 18 and PO2 Sonido to survey and monitor Remegio's activities from January 14, 2005 until January 19, 2005. Through the help of the asset, PO2 Bravo-Aliposa and PO2 Sonido were able to identify Remegio and her place of residence. 19 Based on their physical appearance and the information provided by the asset, PO2 Bravo-Aliposa and PO2 Sonido considered the people who were going in and out of Remegio's house as drug users. To confirm their suspicion, PO2 Bravo-Aliposa and PO2 Sonido together with the asset conducted a test-buy operation on January 20, 2005. PO2 Bravo-Aliposa, acting as poseur-buyer, bought and received P300.00 worth of shabu from Remegio. After placing her initials ("LB" which stands for Liza Bravo) on the small plastic sachet, PO2 Bravo-Aliposa brought the latter along with a letter-request 20 for laboratory examination to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory, Bacolod City. 21 The qualitative examination of the specimen yielded positive 22 for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. 23
SPO4 Gonzales applied for a warrant to search Remegio's residence at Purok Mahigugma-on, Brgy. 22, Bacolod City. The corresponding search warrant 24 was issued on January 28, 2005. To implement the search warrant, SPO4 Gonzales held a briefing at the CAIDSOTG office with his team of operatives, namely: (1) SPO1 Nelson Grijaldo (SPO1 Grijaldo); (2) SPO4 Ernesto Gonzales; (3) SPO1 Arnold Vasquez; (4) PO2 Ronald Villeran; (5) PO2 Rolando Malate; (6) PO3 Charlie Sebastian; (7) PO2 Sonido; and (8) PO2 Bravo-Aliposa. Prior to the implementation of the search warrant, a buy-bust operation will be conducted. For that purpose, PO2 Bravo-Aliposa was designated as poseur-buyer. PO2 Sonido was tasked to search Remegio's house. The serial number CX777031 of the P100.00 bill, the buy-bust money, was recorded in the police blotter. 25
On February 2, 2005 at 6:00 a.m., the buy-bust team arrived at the operation area. PO2 Bravo-Aliposa and the asset proceeded to Remegio's residence while the rest of the team strategically positioned themselves. 26 Upon reaching Remegio's house, PO2 Bravo-Aliposa and the asset asked Remegio if she had stocks of shabu for sale. When Remegio answered affirmatively, poseur-buyer PO2 Bravo-Aliposa handed her a P100.00 bill. Remegio handed back to PO2 Bravo-Aliposa a sachet of shabu. PO2 Bravo-Aliposa then raised her right hand, did a thumbs-up sign, and waved. 27
Upon seeing the pre-arranged signal, PO2 Bravo-Aliposa's fellow operatives rushed to Remegio's residence. They introduced themselves as police officers and PO2 Sonido informed Remegio of the search warrant for her residence. 28 After showing the search warrant to Remegio, some operatives summoned barangay officials to witness the search. When Brgy. Capt. Diaz and Brgy. Kagawad Delilah Taasan (Brgy. Kagawad Taasan) arrived, they searched PO2 Sonido to avoid the possibility of planting evidence and they found nothing on his person. 29 PO2 Sonido searched Remegio's accompanied by Brgy. Capt. Diaz and Brgy. Kagawad Taasan. From his search, PO2 Sonido recovered the following:
1. Six (6) sachets containing suspected shabu;
2. Several empty plastics used for re-packing suspected shabu;
3. Cash amounting to One Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Pesos (P1,750.00) believed to be proceeds of illegal sale of shabu; and
4. One (1) unit Nokia 3310 cellphone. 30
PO2 Sonido marked the six plastic sachets containing suspected shabu and SPO4 Gonzales prepared the receipt 31 of property seized. Certifications for the Conduct of Search 32 and for Remegio's apprehension 33 during a buy-bust operation were likewise prepared. 34
PO2 Bravo-Aliposa marked as "LB" the transparent plastic sachet confiscated during the buy-bust operation at the house of Remegio after her arrest. As evidence custodian, SPO1 Grijaldo took custody of: (a) the transparent plastic sachet confiscated during the buy-bust operation; and (b) the items recovered by PO2 Sonido by virtue of the search warrant. 35 Remegio was brought to the CAIDSOTG office for blotter and the filing of appropriate charges. A return 36 for Search Warrant No. 009-2005 was made. From the time the items subject of Search Warrant No. 009-2005 were marked, inventoried, and brought back to court, SPO1 Grijaldo was in custody thereof. SPO1 Grijaldo kept the articles covered in the return of Search Warrant No. 009-2005 — when they were sent back to the CAIDSOTG office — in a padlocked locker only accessible to him. 37
After receiving the transparent plastic sachet confiscated during the buy-bust operation and the six plastic sachets containing suspected shabu, PO2 Bravo-Aliposa brought them and the Laboratory Examination Request 38 to the PNP Crime Laboratory Bacolod City. After conducting the requested laboratory examination, PSI Guinanao found that all of them yielded positive for the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. 39
For her part, Remegio testified that on February 2, 2005 at 6:30 a.m., she was sleeping with her two sons on the second floor of their house when she heard somebody knocking on their front door. She instructed her eldest son to peek outside and find out who it was. Remegio's son told her that the people knocking threatened to destroy their door if the same is not opened for them. Remegio got up and she saw two persons standing beside a post near their house. One of them threatened again to destroy the door so Remegio hurriedly went down and opened the door. 40
Two persons initially entered their house and asked Remegio where her husband Pesyong was. These two went up to the second floor to look for Pesyong. Five more persons entered their house and ordered her and her sons to sit down on their sala set. These people did not give their reason for entering Remegio's house and they were not accompanied by any barangay official. Pesyong was not at home at the time since he drives daily his trisikad early morning. Remegio was told to surrender items if there were any because if she won't, the search warrant will be returned with negative result. However, Remegio was not shown any search warrant. 41
Since Remegio could not produce the items asked from her, she told the police to accompany her to the barangay hall so she can look for a barangay kagawad. Instead of going to the barangay hall, Remegio and PO2 Sonido 42 went to Brgy. Kagawad Severino Henares' house but he declined to go with them because he was not feeling well. On the way back to Remegio's house, they saw Brgy. Kagawad Taasan waiting for them at the footwalk. Brgy. Kagawad Taasan went with them to Remegio's house where they waited for Brgy. Capt. Diaz to arrive. When Brgy. Capt. Diaz arrived, PO2 Sonido wrote something on a piece of paper and showed it to Brgy. Capt. Diaz. The paper — which turned out to be a Receipt of Property Seized 43 — was shown to Remegio. She was told to sign the same but she refused. 44
Remegio shared that she did not see the police officers mark any of the items allegedly taken from her house. 45 Remegio denied knowing the "Laila Delgante" named as accused in the search warrant but admitted that Delgante is her maiden name. Remegio claimed that she did not see PO2 Bravo-Aliposa in the company of the persons who raided her house. 46
Remegio relayed that the police officers showed her sachets of shabu allegedly taken from the pants pocket of Pesyong whose trousers where hanging at the back of the door of their bedroom. Remegio conveyed that before the barangay officials arrived, the police officers told her that they already seized the said sachets of shabu. The police officers did not search their house anymore when the barangay officials arrived. 47
Brgy. Capt. Diaz testified that the raid of Remegio's house on February 2, 2005 started at 6:30 a.m. He arrived at Remegio's house at 7:30 a.m. after a police officer went to his house and asked him if he can be a witness to their operation. He observed that two police officers were already searching the house. Brgy. Kagawad Taasan accompanied one of the police officers. Brgy. Capt. Diaz accompanied the other police officer searching the house without a barangay official as witness. 48 Brgy. Capt. Diaz stated that they did not recover anything because the search activity was about to finish. After the search, the police officers inventoried the recovered items. Brgy. Capt. Diaz disclosed that although he signed the receipt for the seized items: (1) he had no knowledge where these came from; (2) he did not check them while they were on top of the table; and (3) he noticed that there were no markings on the 6 sachets of suspected shabu. 49
On May 25, 2015, the Bacolod City RTC rendered a Decision 50 finding Remegio guilty for illegal sale of dangerous drugs and she was sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00. On the other hand, the RTC dismissed the charge for illegal possession of dangerous drugs and she was acquitted on reasonable doubt. The RTC justified her acquittal because of the prosecution's failure to present PO2 Sabino that created a gap in the links of the chain of custody of the subject specimens. 51
The RTC ruled that the prosecution was able to establish all the elements for illegal sale of dangerous drugs through PO2 Bravo-Aliposa's testimony as poseur-buyer and her testimony was supported by pertinent documents. The RTC declared that the integrity and evidentiary value of the buy-bust specimen seized from accused-appellant were proven by the prosecution to have been properly preserved under the chain of custody rule. The RTC disregarded Remegio's defenses of denial and alibi. 52
Aggrieved, Remegio appealed her conviction to the CA. In her Brief, 53 Remegio alleged that there was serious doubt on the conduct of an actual buy-bust operation. She was not committing any crime when she was arrested because she merely answered the query of the police officers after she opened their main door. She contended that people in "watch lists" are more susceptible to illegal arrests since they can be picked up any time of the day in either public or private places. Since no valid arrest took place, the search and the seizure made in connection thereto were likewise invalid. 54 While she may have waived her right to question her arrest's illegality by entering a plea and actively participating in the trial, such waiver does not carry with it a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during an illegal warrantless arrest. 55
Remegio noted that although PO2 Bravo-Aliposa allegedly marked the transparent plastic sachet confiscated during the buy-bust operation, the marking thereof is tainted with serious doubt due to the delay in the conduct of the inventory. 56 Remegio pointed out the following: (1) the absence of a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the media as witnesses; and (2) SPO4 Gonzales signing the Receipt of Property Seized as seizing officer despite PO2 Bravo-Aliposa claiming to have seized the transparent plastic sachet. The police officers did not offer a valid explanation on why DOJ and media representatives were not present at the crime scene. Likewise, no justifiable cause was proffered on why the marking, inventory, and photograph taking were not done at the crime scene. Thus, the prosecution failed to comply with Section 21 of R.A. 9165. 57
Remegio averred that the prosecution failed to prove the object and the consideration of the alleged sale transaction because the confidential informant or police asset did not testify. Remegio considered PO2 Bravo-Aliposa's uncorroborated testimony insufficient to convict her. 58
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), appearing for the prosecution, claimed that Remegio was validly arrested in a buy-bust operation. She was caught in flagrante delicto and the police officers are not only authorized but also duty-bound to apprehend and to consequently search her for anything that may have been part or used in the commission of the crime. 59 The OSG averred that accused-appellant's conviction was based on the transparent plastic sachet confiscated during the buy-bust operation and not on those seized by virtue of the search warrant. Remegio's uncorroborated version of the events is insufficient to support her defenses of plain denial and frame-up. 60 Assuming that there were minor lapses in procedure, these will not render the seized items inadmissible because there was clear and documented turnover of the subject illegal drug in the present case. 61 The OSG added that it is not necessary to present all persons who came in contact with the seized drug to testify in court. 62 The OSG maintained that that Remegio's arguments focused merely on inconsequential matters that did not disprove the fact that she was unmistakably identified in open court by the poseur-buyer, PO2 Bravo-Aliposa. 63
In its Decision 64 dated March 26, 2019, the CA affirmed the RTC Decision. The CA declared that Remegio could no longer assail the validity of her arrest because she did not question it before entering her plea. 65 She only raised this issue for the first time on appeal. Neither can she assail the conduct of the buy-bust operation since the parties stipulated upon the fact that she was arrested during a buy-bust operation during pre-trial. 66 Stipulations of facts constitute judicial admissions and are binding upon the parties. The CA found that PO2 Bravo-Aliposa satisfactorily explained that SPO4 Gonzales — as officer-in-charge — signed the Receipt of Property Seized as a matter of procedure. 67 As regards the prosecution's failure to abide by the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. 9165, the CA stressed that this issue was raised also for the first time on appeal and to rule on the same would violate basic rules on fair play and due process. 68 The failure of the prosecution to justify its failure to strictly observe the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. 9165 will not be taken against it because Remegio did not raise this concern during trial. 69 The CA declared that the presentation of the informant is not indispensable to successfully prosecute accused-appellant because the sale of the illegal drug transpired between Remegio and PO2 Bravo-Aliposa. 70 The CA asserted that the fact that the transparent plastic sachet confiscated seized by PO2 Bravo-Aliposa during the buy-bust operation remained in her pocket for an hour is not a ground to reverse Remegio's conviction. 71 The CA observed that the prosecution established that the marking and inventory was done at the earliest possible opportunity — in the place of arrest — and in the presence of Remegio. 72
Remegio filed a Notice of Appeal 73 before the CA. Both the OSG and Remegio manifested that they will no longer file any supplemental brief. 74
The sole issue to be determined is whether the prosecution established accused-appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for illegal sale of prohibited drugs under R.A. 9165.
The appeal is meritorious.
This Court reminds that "an appeal in criminal cases opens the entire case for review, and it is the duty of the reviewing tribunal to correct, cite, and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned." 75 "The appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law." 76
To successfully prosecute illegal sale of prohibited drugs: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and its consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor must be established. 77 In cases of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the dangerous drug seized from the accused constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. Thus, it is of utmost importance that the integrity and identity of the seized drugs must be shown to have been duly preserved. "The chain of custody rule performs this function as it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed." 78
An accused shall only be convicted of the crime charged once it has been established with "certainty that the drugs examined and presented in court were the very ones seized." 79 To satisfy this requirement, the procedure under Section 21 80 of R.A. 9165 must be complied with. This provision was later amended by R.A. 10640 which took effect in 2014. Since the offenses charged were allegedly committed on February 2, 2005, the apprehending team is required to conduct immediately a physical inventory and to photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused or from whom the items were seized, or his/her representative or counsel, as well as required witnesses, namely: a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official.
The prosecution failed to show that the buy-bust team strictly complied with the procedure and neither did it justify the buy-bust team's non-compliance.
While PO2 Bravo-Aliposa testified that she marked the seized transparent plastic sachet at Remegio's residence, she did not mention that photographs of the same were taken there. Neither were photographs of the transparent plastic sachet presented during trial.
The buy-bust team failed to explain why DOJ and media representatives were not present during the marking and inventory of the seized item nor did it show that earnest efforts were in fact exerted to secure or obtain their presence there at given that the buy-bust operation was carried out only after doing a six-day surveillance, conducting a test-buy operation, and securing a search warrant. In People v. Malana, 81 this Court noted that a buy-bust team can easily gather the three required witnesses, considering that its operation is, by its nature, a planned activity. 82
The chain of custody is established by testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered in 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. 83
These links should be established in the chain of custody of the confiscated item: 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 from the forensic chemist to the court. 84
The prosecution failed to prove the identity of the corpus delicti because of broken links in the chain of custody. 85
The first link includes compliance with photograph taking of the seized drug and is done before the latter is sent to the crime laboratory for testing. There is nothing on record showing the required photograph taking was complied with. The prosecution's formal offer of evidence did not include these photographs. The prosecution failed to explain the absence of these photographs or the buy-bust team's inability to comply with this requirement.
The prosecution likewise failed to account for the fourth link of the chain which refers to the turnover and submission of the dangerous drug from the forensic chemist to the court. Although PSI Guinanao testified that she received the seized article as marked, she did not testify on the condition of the specimens when she received them prior to their examination, i.e., if they were properly sealed and intact. In the same vein, while PSI Guinanao mentioned that she placed her own marking on the seized article, she failed to reveal if: (1) she resealed it after examination of the content; and (2) she took the precautionary steps to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item to ensure that it could not be tampered with pending trial. PSI Guinanao failed to disclose where the specimen was kept after the qualitative examination and the possibility of other people having access to the specimen. It is settled that absent any testimony on the management, storage, and preservation of the illegal drugs subject of seizure after its qualitative examination, the fourth link in the chain of custody of the illegal drugs is deemed not to have been reasonably established. 86
The prosecution also failed to provide any particulars on the turnover and submission of the seized illegal drugs from the forensic chemist to the court. All told, there was no complete account on the handling of the seized drugs from the time they were confiscated up to their presentation in court.
The abovementioned lapses to preserve the identity and integrity of the drug allegedly seized from Remegio fall short of the required evidence to prove the guilt of accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated March 26, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02076 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Laila Delgante Remegio is ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt, and is ORDERED to be IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless she is being lawfully held for another cause.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women, Mandaluyong City, for immediate implementation. The said Superintendent is DIRECTED to report the action taken to this Court, within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
The Regional Trial Court is DIRECTED to turn over the shabu subject of this case to the Dangerous Drugs Board in accordance with the law.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 18-19.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Edward B. Contreras, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and Dorothy P. Montejo-Gonzaga; id. at 5-17.
3. Penned by Judge Therese Blanche A. Bolunia; CA rollo, pp. 85-98.
4.Id. at 97.
5.Id. at 85-86.
6.Id. at 97.
7.Id. at 96.
8. Records, p. 1.
9.Id. at 30-31.
10.Id. at 33.
11.Id. at 44-46.
12.Id. at 46.
13.Id. at 52-54.
14.Id. at 65.
15.Id. at 304.
16.Id. at 308.
17.Id. at 304.
18. Then PO1 Bravo.
19. Records, p. 305.
20.Id. at 230.
21.Id. at 305.
22.Id. at 230.
23. TSN dated August 10, 2009, pp. 14-24.
24.Id. at 12.
25.Id. at 14-24.
26.Id. at 31.
27.Id. at 33-35.
28.Id. at 35.
29.Id. at 36-37.
30.Id. at 37-38.
31. Records, p. 16.
32.Id. at 17.
33.Id. at 21.
34. TSN dated August 10, 2009, pp. 39-45.
35. Records, p. 307.
36.Id. at 21.
37. TSN dated May 30, 2011, p. 7.
38. Records, p. 8.
39.Id. at 9.
40.Id. at 309.
41.Id.
42. TSN dated March 12, 2012, p. 6
43. Records, p. 16.
44.Id. at 309.
45.Id.
46.Id. at 310.
47. TSN dated January 9, 2012, pp. 13-14.
48. TSN dated November 13, 2014, p. 45.
49. TSN dated November 13, 2014, pp. 4-8.
50.Supra note 2.
51. CA rollo, pp. 96-97.
52.Id. at 95-96.
53. CA rollo, pp. 69-83.
54.Id. at 75.
55.Id. at 76.
56.Id. at 77.
57.Id. at 78.
58.Id. at 80.
59.Id. at 134.
60.Id. at 135.
61.Id. at 141.
62.Id. at 143.
63.Id. at 146.
64.Supra note 2.
65. CA rollo, p. 11.
66.Id. at 12-13.
67.Id. at 14.
68.Id.
69.Id.
70.Id. at 15-16.
71.Id. at 16.
72.Id.
73.Id. at 18-19.
74.Id. at 28-29, 34-35.
75.Rivac v. People, G.R. No. 224673, January 22, 2018, citing People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 225 (2015).
76.Id.; see People v. Comboy, 782 Phil. 187 (2016).
77.People v. Pantallano, G.R. No. 233800, March 6, 2019.
78.Id. citing Fajardo v. People, 691 Phil. 752 (2012), citing People v. Gutierrez, 614 Phil. 285 (2009).
79.People v. Ramos, G.R. No. 225325, August 28, 2019, citing People v. Nandi, 639 Phil. 134 (2010).
80. 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;
xxx xxx xxx
81. G.R. No. 233747, December 5, 2018.
82.People v. Manansala, G.R. No. 229509, July 3, 2019.
83.People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21 (2017).
84.People v. Nandi, 639 Phil. 134 (2010).
85. See People v. Carlit, 816 Phil. 940 (2017).
86.People v. De Vera, G.R. No. 229364, October 16, 2019.