People v. Reyes

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 242021. January 11, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. ANA CAGUMAY YBASCO and MIRAFLOR MONTES REYES, accused,

MIRAFLOR MONTES REYES, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJanuary 11, 2021, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 242021 (People of the Philippines v. Ana Cagumay Ybasco and Miraflor Montes Reyes, accused; Miraflor Montes Reyes, accused-appellant). — This Appeal 1 assails the Decision 2 dated May 24, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01495-MIN affirming the conviction of appellant Miraflor Montes Reyes (Reyes) and accused Ana Cagumay Ybasco (Ybasco) for violation of Section 5 in relation to Section 26 (b), Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 involving the alleged sale of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, also known as "shabu," a dangerous drug.

The Proceedings Before the Trial Court

The Charge

An Information for violation of RA 9165 was filed against Reyes and Ybasco, viz.:

That on or about 3:15 o'clock in the afternoon of May 27, 2008 at Butuan City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority [o]f law and without the corresponding license or prescription, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously dispense, deliver and give away two (2) sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu, weighing zero point zero one two three (0.0123) gram and zero point zero one two eight (0.0128) gram, more or less, which is a dangerous drug[,] to a poseur-buyer.

CONTRARY TO LAW: (Violation of Section 5 in relation to Sec. 26(b) of R.A. 9165) 3

On arraignment, Reyes and Ybasco pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. 4

During the trial, Investigation Agent V Joel Balingan Plaza (IA5 Plaza), Investigation Agent III Christy Eleazar Silvan (IA3 Silvan), Police Chief Inspector Cramwell Tanquiamco Banogon (PC/Insp. Banogon) and Barangay Kagawad Domingo Zoilo (Brgy. Kagawad Zoilo) testified for the prosecution. On the other hand, Reyes and Ybasco testified for the defense. 5 CAIHTE

The Prosecution's Version

On May 14, 2008, the office of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) in Butuan City received an information about the illegal drug activity of Reyes and her husband (spouses Reyes). Acting on the said information, PDEA Regional Director Atty. Joel Quirones formed a team to conduct surveillance on the activities of the spouses Reyes. 6

Subsequently, or on May 27, 2008, at 9 o'clock in the morning, a confidential informant came to the office of PDEA-Butuan City and personally relayed to IA5 Plaza information about the illegal drug activity of the spouses Reyes. IA5 Plaza verified the information and consequently informed his Regional Director about the same. 7

Immediately thereafter, a briefing was made for the buy-bust operation against the spouses Reyes. IA5 Plaza was designated as the poseur-buyer while the confidential informant was tasked to accompany him to the residence of the spouses Reyes. On the other hand, IA3 Silvan was designated as the arresting officer, while the rest of the PDEA agents were designated as back-ups. The buy-bust money consisted of two (2) pieces of P500.00 bill marked with the initial "JPA" and "JPB." It was also agreed during the briefing that IA5 Plaza will place a "missed call" on the mobile phone of IA3 Silvan to signal the consummation of the sale. 8

At 3 o'clock of the same day, the buy-bust team, together with the confidential informant, proceeded to the house of appellant Reyes. IA5 Plaza and the confidential informant were on board a motorcycle while the rest of the team were on board an unmarked PDEA vehicle. 9

Upon arriving at the target place, IA5 Plaza and the confidential informant parked their motorcycle in front of the fenced and gated house of appellant Reyes. They went through the unlocked gate but only up until one or two meters away from the entrance of Reyes' house. The confidential informant called Reyes by her name. The latter then came out to check who was calling her outside. Upon seeing the confidential informant, who was her frequent buyer, she immediately asked, "How much would you purchase?" The confidential informant replied, "[o]nly worth P1,000.00." IA5 Plaza then took out the marked money from his right pocket and handed the same to Reyes. 10

After appellant Reyes got hold of the marked money, Ybasco came out of the house and asked her, "How much would they want?" 11 Reyes replied, "Only worth P1,000.00" and proceeded to give the marked money to Ybasco. 12 Ybasco then took out two (2) sachets of shabu from the cigarette pack she was holding and gave the same to Reyes who, in turn, handed the same to IA5 Plaza. IA5 Plaza examined the sachets. After being convinced that the sachets contained shabu, he dropped a call to IA3 Silvan, which was the pre-arranged signal for the consummation of the sale. 13

Consequently, IA3 Silvan and the rest of the back-up team arrived. IA5 Plaza introduced himself to Reyes and Ybasco as a PDEA agent. The two proceeded to run inside the house but IA3 Silvan accosted them. The buy-bust team noticed six (6) other people inside the house and ordered them to lie down on the ground, including Reyes and Ybasco. Reyes and Ybasco were thereafter informed of their constitutional rights. The buy-bust team also found several drug paraphernalia in a room inside the house. 14

Before proceeding with the inventory of the sachets of shabu and the several drug paraphernalia, the buy-bust team called for media representatives and a barangay official. When the representatives from the media and Brgy. Kagawad Zoilo arrived, IA5 Plaza marked the two sachets with his initials "JBP1" and "JBP2." A Certificate of Inventory was then prepared by IA3 Silvan and signed by the witnesses. 15

After the inventory, Reyes and Ybasco and the seized items were brought to the PDEA office in Butuan. There, a Request for Laboratory Examination of the seized items was prepared. Consequently, IA5 Plaza brought the seized items to the Regional Crime Laboratory Office-13 for laboratory examination. The seized items were received by PO3 Solis who later turned over the said items to PC/Insp. Banogon for laboratory examination. 16

Chemistry Report No. D-049-2008 shows that the two sachets, marked with the initials "JBP1" and "JBP2," were positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. 17

The Defense's Version

Reyes and Ybasco both denied the charge. They claimed that on May 27, 2008, they were at the house of Reyes, together with some other visitors at the said house when PDEA agents suddenly entered the house and declared a buy-bust operation. 18

The PDEA operatives later summoned Brgy. Kagawad Zoilo. Upon the latter's arrival, they were made to board a vehicle and were brought to the office of the PDEA. 19

The Trial Court's Ruling

As borne by its Decision 20 dated December 1, 2015, the trial court rendered a verdict of conviction, viz.:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds both accused Miraflor Montes Reyes and Ana Cagumay Ybasco guilty beyond reasonable doubt as co-conspirators of violation of Section 5 of Article II of Republic Act 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) and hereby sentence[s] both to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and both to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

Both accused shall serve their sentence at the Correctional Institute for Women (Mindanao), Juan Acenas Sub-colony, Sto. Tomas, Davao del Norte.

Both accused shall be credited in the service of their sentence with their preventive imprisonment conformably with Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.

The sachets of shabu are ordered forfeited in favor of the government to be dealt with in accordance with law.

SO ORDERED. 21

The trial court ruled that the prosecution was able to establish the identity of Reyes and Ybasco as the sellers of the dangerous drug. It held that the inventory of the seized items was conducted in the presence of Reyes, Ybasco, media representatives and Brgy. Kagawad Zoilo. Thus, there was substantial compliance with the chain of custody rule. 22 DETACa

Both Reyes and Ybasco filed their respective Notices of Appeal. Ybasco, however, failed to file her Appellant's Brief. On the other hand, her counsel on record filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel. 23 In a Resolution dated January 10, 2017, the Court of Appeals (CA) declared Ybasco's appeal as abandoned and dismissed. Consequently, it issued a Partial Entry of Judgment dated February 11, 2017, insofar as Ybasco is concerned. 24

The CA Ruling

The CA affirmed the trial court's Decision through its Decision dated May 24, 2018. It gave more credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses over Reyes' bare denial. 25 It held that the prosecution was able to adequately establish all the elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs. 26 It further held that the integrity of the evidence is presumed to have been preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with. Reyes and Ybasco bear this burden which they unfortunately failed to discharge. 27

The Present Appeal

Reyes now seeks affirmative relief from this Court and prays anew for her acquittal.

Reyes filed a Supplemental Brief. 28 On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) manifested that in lieu of filing a supplemental brief, it is adopting its Appellee's Brief filed before the CA. 29

Issue

Did the CA err in affirming the trial court's verdict of conviction despite the attendant procedural deficiencies in the chain of custody of the seized illegal drugs?

Our Ruling

The appeal is meritorious.

At the outset, We emphasize that an appeal in a criminal case throws the whole case open for review and it is the duty of the appellate court to correct, cite, and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned. 30

Reyes is charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs allegedly committed on May 27, 2008. The governing law, therefore, is RA 9165 before its amendment in 2014. 31

In illegal drugs cases, the drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. The prosecution is, therefore, tasked to establish that the substance illegally possessed by Reyes is the same substance presented in court. 32

Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 prescribes the standard in preserving the corpus delicti in illegal drug cases, viz.: 33

Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof; (Emphasis added)

The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 further commands: 34

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. (Emphasis added)

To ensure the integrity of the seized drug item, the prosecution must account for each link in its chain of custody: first, the seizure, marking, and inventory 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. 35 aDSIHc

This is the chain of custody rule which guards against tampering, alteration, or substitution of the seized illegal drugs. 36

In the instant case, all the four links were broken.

First link: The seizure, marking, and

Records reveal that the arresting officers here failed to comply with the "three-witness rule" which requires the presence of (1) a media representative, (2) a Department of Justice (DOJ) representative, and (3) an elected public official, at the time of the warrantless arrest and during the inventory taking of all the seized items. (emphasis added)

Arresting officer IA5 Plaza testified that they called for witnesses only before the inventory taking, viz.:

Q After that, what happened?

A When we introduced ourselves as PDEA Agents, Miraflor and Ana ran inside the house, and Cristy Silvan was able to catch up with them inside the house. And, we noticed that there were other six (6) people inside, aside from the two (2), and we made them lie prostrate.

xxx xxx xxx

Q And then, after that, what happened next?

A After that, we noticed a bedroom and inside of that bedroom we saw drug paraphernalia.

xxx xxx xxx

Q And what did you do to those things you found?

A We did not touch it. We were just looking at it and then we called for witnesses.

Q Whom were you calling to witness that buy-bust?

A I first suggested to the Regional Director for us to call some witnesses, and the Regional Director tasked the other members of the team to summon those witnesses.

Q You mean to tell the Court that your Regional Director was with you at that time?

A Yes, Sir.

Q What was your purpose in calling for witnesses?

A From the drug paraphernalia that we saw, it is expected that we are going to make a Certificate of Inventory, and it is a requirement to have a witness in preparing that document.

xxx xxx xxx

Q Did those witness whom you called for arrive?

A Yes, Sir.

xxx xxx xxx

Q And when the witnesses arrived, what did you do?

A When the witnesses were already there, I marked the sachets.37 (Emphases supplied)

As can be gleaned from the above testimony of IA5 Plaza, witnesses were called, and arrived, only after the consummation of the illegal sale and consequent arrest of appellant Reyes and Ybasco.

Moreover, although the inventory was witnessed, and the Certificate of Inventory was signed, by three persons, a closer examination of the records would reveal that these three witnesses consist only of two (2) media representatives and one (1) elective public official. The required presence of a DOJ representative was missing.

All this was in clear violation of the requirement that the presence of the three witnesses must be secured not only during the inventory but more importantly at the time of the warrantless arrest. It is at this point in which the presence of the three witnesses is most needed, as it is their presence at the time of seizure and confiscation that would belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug. 38 Their presence was precisely necessary to insulate the apprehension and incrimination proceedings from any taint of illegitimacy or irregularity. 39

Surely, Section 21 of the IRR of RA 9165 provides for a saving clause. This saving clause provides that non-compliance with the procedural requirements, under justifiable grounds so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved, shall not render void and invalid the seizures of and custody over the seized items. In the instant case, however, the arresting officers proffered no excuse or justification for their failure to comply with the three-witness rule. Interestingly, IA5 Plaza even testified that all the witnesses they called actually arrived before they made the inventory, or twenty (20) to thirty (30) minutes after the arrest. 40 Given that no DOJ representative arrived and witnessed the inventory taking, the logical conclusion is that, they did not actually seek the presence of any DOJ representative to witness the inventory.

This Court has held time and again that the practice of police operatives of not bringing to the intended place of arrest the three witnesses to observe the buy-bust operation, when they could easily do so — and "calling them in" only to witness the inventory of the drugs after the buy-bust operation has already been finished — does not achieve the purpose of the law in having these witnesses prevent or insulate against the planting of drugs. 41 ETHIDa

Verily, the unjustified absence here of the required insulating witnesses during the buy-bust operation, their incomplete presence during the inventory, and lack of earnest efforts to secure their complete presence put into question the identity and integrity of the seized illegal drugs. 42 (emphasis added)

The Court also notes that while IA5 Plaza testified that he marked the seized items, and the inventory was witnessed by two (2) media representatives and a barangay official, he did not categorically state that said marking was done in the presence of Reyes and Ybasco, their representatives or counsels, as required by the chain of custody rule. While Brgy. Kagawad Zoilo, one of the purported witnesses and the only one presented in court, testified that he witnessed the conduct of inventory, he made no declaration that he witnessed the marking of the seized items.

Too, the Certificate of Inventory 43 does not bear the signatures of Reyes and Ybasco. While IA3 Silvan claimed that the inventory was made in the presence of Reyes, Ybasco, and the witnesses, 44 the unexplained lack of signatures of Reyes and Ybasco on the Certificate of Inventory only bolstered the possibility that the inventory of the seized items was done without their presence, their representatives or counsels. It is also worth noting that Brgy. Kagawad Zoilo, did not likewise categorically state that the inventory was made in the presence of Reyes and Ybasco.

Both IA5 Plaza and IA3 Silvan failed to offer any explanation as to such irregularities in the marking and inventory.

In People v. Dela Victoria, 45 the Court acquitted the accused in view of the irregularities in the marking and inventory of the seized items, viz.:

The presence of these personalities and the immediate marking and conduct of physical inventory after seizure and confiscation in full view of the accused and the required witnesses cannot be brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality. While non-compliance is allowed, the same ought to be justified. Case law states that the prosecution must show that earnest efforts were exerted by the PDEA operatives to comply with the mandated procedure as to convince the Court that the attempt to comply was reasonable under the given circumstances. Since this was not the case here, the Court is impelled to conclude that there has been an unjustified breach of procedure and hence, the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti had been compromised. Consequently, Dela Victoria's acquittal is in order.

In fine, the first link in the chain of custody was inherently weak causing it to irreversibly break from the other links. 46

Second link: The turnover of the

The prosecution likewise failed to establish the second link in the chain of custody. Nowhere in the records does it show that the seized items were turned over from the apprehending officer to the investigating officer. Neither was it shown that poseur-buyer and arresting officer IA5 Plaza, who turned over the seized items together with the Request for Laboratory Examination 47 to the crime laboratory, served both as apprehending officer and investigating officer. In fact, a scrutiny of the Request for Laboratory Examination would reveal that the same was not prepared and signed by IA5 Plaza, but by then PDEA RO XIII Officer-in-Charge Atty. Joey S. Quirones, who was also one of the arresting officers in this case. It cannot thus be concluded that IA5 Plaza was himself the investigating officer in this case.

In People v. Remigio, 48 the Court noted the failure of the police officers to establish the chain of custody as the apprehending officer did not transfer the seized items to the investigating officer. The apprehending officer kept the alleged shabu from the time of confiscation until the time he transferred them to the forensic chemist. The deviation from the links in the chain of custody led to the acquittal of the accused in the said case.

Undeniably, the second link was sorely missing.

Third link: The turnover by the

IA5 Plaza claimed that the seized items were last held by him before the same were examined at the crime laboratory. 49 On the contrary, however, PC/Insp. Banogon, who examined the seized items, testified that it was actually PO3 Solis who initially received the seized items at the crime laboratory office before the same were finally turned over to him, viz.: cSEDTC

Q In this rubber stamp mark of the Crime Laboratory, there are entries found therein, will you please elaborate or explain in the layman's parlance the meaning of these entries starting from the entry which reads Case number until the entry Delivered by.

A x x x the portion which reads Received by PCI Banogon is the Forensic Examiner tasked to examine the said specimen accompanying the letter-request; the portion received from PO3 Solis and a signature[,] pertains to the duty PNCO who was undergoing lobby duty at our office at that time who himself was the one who actually received this letter-request along with the subject specimen; and the entry written as Delivered by IO3 Joel B. Plaza and a signature[,] referred to the person who actually brought this letter request along with the said specimen at that particular time and date.50

xxx xxx xxx

Q Mr. Witness, you made mentioned (sic) that it was Police Officer Solis who initially received the specimen being submitted to your office on May 27, 2008?

A Yes, Sir.

Q And, how much time that (sic) elapsed before Officer Solis turned over to your office the specimen being delivered?

A To me personally, I think it took Solis maybe 15 or 20 minutes considering that there were many specimens involved in the case and there was also another request for drug test on the suspects numbering around 7. So, it took him a while before he actually turned it over to me for examination.

Q When Police Officer Solis received the specimen, you were merely notified about it, correct?

A Yes, Sir.

Q You were actually in your office but you did not see the actual receipt of Police Officer Solis?

A Yes, Sir.

Q And, when it was turned over to you, that was the time that you were able to scrutinize the specimen submitted to you?

A Yes, Sir, as far as what is written in the letter request is concerned. 51 (Emphases supplied)

While not all people who came into contact with the seized illegal drugs are required to testify in court, 52 it must still, be shown that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drugs have been preserved. Unfortunately, it was not accounted here how the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drugs were preserved by PO3 Solis during the 15 to 20 minutes it remained in his possession.

The unaccounted 15 to 20 minutes handling of the seized illegal drugs was left open to the realm of possibilities such that the evidentiary value of drugs presented in court was unduly prejudiced; considering it is uncertain whether the drugs were never compromised. 53

Unquestionably, the third link was likewise breached.

Fourth link: The turnover and

PC/Insp. Banogon did not testify as to the handling and safekeeping of the seized illegal drugs while it remained in his custody, as the forensic chemist, until the said seized illegal drugs were turned over to the court. His testimony was limited to the fact that (a) the seized items and the Request for Laboratory Examination were initially received by PO3 Solis from IA5 Plaza, before the items were turned over to him, and (b) that after personally conducting the laboratory examination, the specimens submitted to him were found positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.

In People v. Omamos, 54 the Court acquitted the accused in view of the breaches in the first and fourth links in the chain of custody. With respect to the fourth link, the Court held, thus:

In drug related cases, it is of paramount necessity that the forensic chemist testifies on the details pertaining to the handling and analysis of the dangerous drug submitted for examination i.e., when and from whom the dangerous drug was received; what identifying labels or other thingsaccompanied it; description of the specimen; and the container it was in. Further, the forensic chemist must also identify the name and method of analysis used in determining the chemical composition of the subject specimen. 55 (Emphasis added)

Evidently, the fourth link was just as broken as the first, second, and third links.

Breaches of the procedure outlined in Section 21, Article Il of RA 9165 committed by the police officers, left unacknowledged and unexplained by the State, as in this case, militate against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt against the accused as the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti had been compromised. 56

The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties in favor of the police officers will not save the prosecution's case, given the foregoing procedural lapses. The presumption stands only when no reason exists in the records by which to doubt the regularity of the performance of official duty. And even in that instance, the presumption of regularity will never be stronger than the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. Otherwise, a mere rule of evidence will defeat the constitutionally enshrined right of an accused. 57

It is well-settled that an accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond reasonable doubt. The burden lies with the prosecution to overcome this presumption of innocence by presenting proof beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution must rest on its own merits and must not rely on the weakness of the defense. If the prosecution fails to meet the required evidence, the defense does not even need to present evidence in its own behalf; the presumption prevails and the accused should be acquitted. 58 SDAaTC

Considering that the prosecution failed to prove Reyes and Ybascos' guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the acquittal of Reyes is thus perforce in order.

As for Ybasco, while she is not a party to this appeal and the CA had already issued a Partial Entry of Judgment insofar as she is concerned, she may still benefit from this verdict of acquittal, in accordance with Section 11, Rule 122 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, 59viz.:

Section 11. Effect of appeal by any of several accused. —

(a) An appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insular as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the later. 60

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated May 24, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01495-MIN is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Partial Entry of Judgment dated February 11, 2017 is LIFTED. Accordingly, appellant Miraflor Montes Reyes and her co-accused Ana Cagumay Ybasco are ACQUITTED of the crime charged.

The Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women-Mindanao, Davao Prison and Penal Farm, B.E. Dujali, Davao del Norte is ORDERED to: (a) cause the immediate release of Miraflor Montes Reyes and Ana Cagumay Ybasco, unless they are being held in custody for any other lawful reason, and (b) inform the Court of the action taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.

Let entry of judgment be issued.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 33-34.

2. Penned by Associate Justice Walter S. Ong, with Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello and Perpetua T. Atal-Paño, concurring; id. at 3-32.

3.Id. at 4.

4.Id.

5.Id. at 4-5.

6.Id. at 5.

7.Id.

8.Id.

9.Id.

10.Id. at 5-6.

11.Id. at 6.

12. TSN, August 26, 2011, p. 17.

13.Rollo, p. 6.

14.Id.

15.Id. at 6-7.

16.Id. at 7.

17.Id.

18.Id. at 7-8.

19.Id. at 8.

20. Penned by Presiding Judge Godofredo B. Abul, Jr.; CA rollo, pp. 30-41.

21.Id. at 41.

22.Id.

23.Id. at 49-51.

24.Rollo, p. 9.

25.Id. at 29-30.

26.Id. at 11.

27.Id. at 29.

28.Id. at 44-46.

29.Id. at 40-41.

30.San Juan v. People, 664 Phil. 547, 559 (2011), citing People v. Balagat, 604 Phil. 529, 534 (2009).

31.People v. Dela Torre, G.R. No. 225789, July 29, 2019.

32.People v. Nazareno, G.R. No. 231875, July 29, 2019.

33.People v. Dela Torre, supra.

34.Id.

35.Id.

36.Id.

37. TSN, August 26, 2010, pp. 20-24.

38.People v. Cabezudo, G.R. No. 232357, November 28, 2018.

39. See People v. Mendoza, 736 Phil. 749, 761-762 (2014), citing People v. Catalan, 699 Phil. 603, 619 (2012).

40. TSN, August 26, 2010, p. 22; TSN, May 2, 2011, pp. 11-12.

41. See People v. Tomawis, 830 Phil. 385, 409 (2018).

42. See People v. Tayan, G.R. No. 242160, July 8, 2019.

43. Records, pp. 10-11.

44. TSN, August 12, 2011, p. 8.

45. 829 Phil. 675 (2018).

46. See People v. Ferrer, G.R. No. 213914, June 6, 2018.

47. Records, pp. 13-14.

48. 700 Phil. 452 (2012).

49. TSN, August 26, 2010, pp. 37-38.

50. TSN, March 8, 2012, p. 4.

51.Id. at 9-10.

52. See People v. Galicia, 826 Phil. 119, 140 (2018) citing People v. Padua, 639 Phil. 235, 251 (2010).

53. See People v. Angeles, G.R. No. 218947, June 20, 2018.

54. G.R. No. 223036, July 10, 2019.

55.Id.

56. See People v. Cabezudo, G.R. No. 232357, November 28, 2018.

57.People v. Diputado, 813 Phil. 160, 176 (2017), citing People v. Mendoza, 736 Phil. 749, 770 (2014).

58. See id. at 176-177.

59. See People v. Posos, G.R. No. 226492, October 2, 2019.

60.Id.