People v. Reyes y Esquivel

SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 229039. October 6, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. VIRGILIO REYES y ESQUIVEL, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Special First Division, issued a Resolution dated October 6, 2021 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 229039 (People of the Philippines v. Virgilio Reyes y Esquivel). — This is a Motion for Reconsideration 1 from the Resolution 2 dated July 22, 2019 of the Court dismissing the appeal 3 of accused-appellant Virgilio Reyes y Esquivel (Reyes) for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in its Decision 4 dated August 31, 2016 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07709 to warrant the exercise of the Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction. 5

The Antecedents

Reyes was charged with violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9165 in Crim. Case No. R-QZN-13-03460-CR. The Information against him states:

That on or about the 18th day of September 2013, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, without lawful authority, did, then and there[,] willfully and unlawfully sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit, or transport, or act as broker in the said transaction, One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing ten point thirty[-]six (10.36) grams of white crystalline substance containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 6

The prosecution presented the following witnesses: (1) PO3 Fernando Salonga (PO3 Salonga); (2) PO3 Miguel Cordero (PO3 Cordero); and (3) PO3 Nilo Duazo (PO3 Duazo). The presentation of PSI Anamelisa Bacani (PSI Bacani) and PO Juania Tucad (PO Tucad) were dispensed with after the parties agreed to stipulate on their testimonies. 7

According to the prosecution witnesses, at around 2:00 pm on September 18, 2013, the Quezon City Police District-District Anti-Illegal Drugs-Special Operations Task Group (QCPD-DAID-SOTG) received information from a confidential asset that an alias "Ade" was engaged in the sale of illegal drugs. The informant reported that he contacted "Ade" to buy shabu from him at around 7:00 pm on the same day at the Flying V gas station in Araneta Avenue, Quezon City. 8

A buy-bust operation was planned by members of the QCPD-DAID-SOTG which include PO3 Salonga, PO3 Cordero, PO3 Zamora, PO3 Joel Diomampo (PO3 Diomampo), and SPO2 Jerry Abad (SPO2 Abad). PO3 Salonga was designated as the poseur-buyer who was given 28 pieces of boodle money and two P500.00 bills as buy-bust money, each marked with his initials "FS" on the upper left portion thereof. 9

Upon arriving at the target area, PO3 Salonga and the confidential informant approached "Ade" who remarked, "May kasama ka pala." The confidential informant replied, "Pare, kaibigan ko siya, siya ang bibili ng item mo." "Ade" then asked, "Magkano ang bibilhin?" PO3 Salonga answered, "Isang bulto lang halagang P15,000.00" "Ade" agreed and said, "Sige magandang klase ito." "Ade" then took a small plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance from his right front pocket and handed it to him. In exchange, PO3 Salonga handed over the marked money and boodle money to "Ade." PO3 Salonga then gave the pre-arranged signal by lighting a cigarette. Thereafter, other police officers rushed to the location and arrested "Ade." 10 SDHTEC

While PO3 Cordero held "Ade," PO3 Salonga asked his real name to which he replied, "Virgilio Reyes." PO3 Salonga then placed the markings "FS/VR 9/18/13" on the small plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance in the presence of "Ade" and other members of the team at the place of arrest. However, a crowd started to gather around them while he was marking the evidence. Thus, the apprehending team was prompted to proceed to the police station. Upon arriving at the station, PO3 Salonga turned over the small plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance to PO3 Duazo as reflected in the Turnover of Confiscated/Seized Evidence. PO3 Duazo prepared the Chain of Custody form while PO3 Salonga prepared the Inventory Receipt, as witnessed by Ernie dela Cruz, a radio reporter. PO3 Duazo took a photograph of "Ade" with the seized item and buy-bust money. 11

The specimen was turned over to Police Senior Inspector (PSI) Anamelisa S. Bacani (PSI Bacani) for the appropriate laboratory examination. Chemistry Report No. D-394-13 confirmed that the white crystalline substance is Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu. The specimen was then turned over to the evidence custodian, PO Tucad. 12

In his defense, Reyes claimed that on the date and time of his apprehension, he was sleeping at the gas station in Araneta Avenue, Quezon City. PO3 Salonga and three other police officers woke him up and asked him if he knew a certain "Iboy." When he replied in the negative, he was brought to Camp Karingal where he was shown a small plastic sachet and two P500.00 bills that allegedly came from one of the police officer's drawers. 13

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

On August 26, 2015, the RTC rendered its Judgment, 14 the dispositive portion of which states:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused VIRGILIO REYES Y ESQUIBEL [sic] GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act [No.] 9165. Accordingly, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) Pesos.

The Branch Clerk of Court is ordered to prepare the Mittimus for the immediate transfer of the accused to the Bureau of Corrections, New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City.

The 10.36 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu is hereby forfeited in favor of the government.

The Branch Clerk of this Court is also directed to immediately turn over to the Chief of PDEA Crime Laboratory, the drug evidence in this case, consisting of a heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance with markings "FS/VR 9/18/13["], covered by Chemistry Report No. D-234-10, to be disposed of in strict conformity with the provisions of R.A. [No.] 9165 and its implementing rules and regulations on the matter.

SO ORDERED. 15

In convicting Reyes, the RTC found that the prosecution was able to establish that the sale actually took place between PO3 Salonga, the poseur-buyer, and Reyes during a buy-bust operation. The RTC relied on the testimony of PO3 Salonga wherein he narrated how the transaction transpired and that the sale was consummated with the receipt by Reyes of the marked money. 16

The RTC was also convinced that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated dangerous drugs were preserved in consonance with the chain of custody rule as all the links were established. 17 The RTC explained that though the inventory was not conducted in the area of operation but at the police station, and that there were no elected public official and representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), these did not render the seizure of the dangerous drugs invalid. The RTC cited the pertinent provision in Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules of R.A. 9165 and jurisprudence wherein seizure of dangerous drugs was upheld when the non-compliance with the requirements was based on justifiable grounds. 18

On appeal, Reyes impugned the findings of the RTC and raised the lone error:

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO ESTABLISH THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY AND INTEGRITY OF THE ALLEGEDLY SEIZED DRUG ITEM. 19

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

In a Decision 20 dated August 31, 2016, the CA denied the appeal of Reyes and affirmed the ruling of the RTC. 21

In affirming Reyes' conviction, the CA found that the prosecution successfully established all the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. 22 The CA held that the chain of custody was established through the following links: (1) PO3 Salonga and PO3 Cordero arrested Reyes from whom buy-bust money was recovered; (2) PO3 Salonga took custody of the seized plastic sachet of white crystalline substance suspected to be shabu; (3) PO3 Salonga marked it with "FS/VR 9/18/13" in the presence of Reyes and other police officers at the place of arrest; (4) the arresting team brought Reyes as well as the confiscated item to the police station; (5) PO3 Duazo, case investigator, received the seized item and took a photograph thereof with Reyes; (6) PO3 Duazo prepared a Chain of Custody report and PO3 Salonga prepared an Inventory Receipt in the presence of a media personality; (7) PO3 Duazo brought the confiscated item to the crime laboratory which was received and examined by PSI Bacani; (8) the laboratory examination report confirmed that the plastic sachet with white crystalline substance yielded positive for shabu; and (9) PSI Bacani turned over the chemistry report together with the specimen to the evidence custodian, PO Tucad. For the CA, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. 23 AScHCD

Aggrieved, Reyes filed a Notice of Appeal 24 on September 29, 2016. The Court notified the parties to file their supplemental briefs. 25 However, Reyes opted not to file his supplemental brief since he believes that he had adequately discussed all matters pertinent to his defense in his brief. 26 For its part, the Office of the Solicitor General manifested that it will no longer file a supplemental brief. 27

The Court's Resolution dated July 22, 2019

In a Resolution 28 dated July 22, 2019, the Court resolved to dismiss the appeal and affirm the decision of the CA. The Court found that the departure from the standard procedure of marking the seized items at the police station to be justified. The Court agreed with the CA in ruling that the prosecution was able to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the contraband from the time of its seizure until its delivery to the court. 29

In his Motion for Reconsideration, 30 Reyes reiterated the following arguments: (1) the prosecution failed to present a complete picture detailing the alleged buy-bust operation in view of its failure to present the testimony of the confidential asset who made the initial arrangement to buy shabu from him; 31 (2) the inventory of the confiscated items was not only not done immediately after confiscation, it was also not witnessed by a public official and a representative from the DOJ as required under the strict provisions of Section 21, R.A. 9165 and the PNP Manual on Anti-Illegal Drugs Operation and Investigation (2010 PNP Manual); 32 and (3) the police officers failed to adduce any evidence to prove that they exerted earnest efforts to secure the presence of the other required witnesses and explain the deviation from the prescribed procedures in violation of Section 21, R.A. 9165 and the 2010 PNP Manual on Anti-Illegal Drugs Operation and Investigation (2010 PNP Manual). 33 Reyes added that the police officers failed to indicate the weight of the sachet of shabu allegedly confiscated in violation of paragraph A (f) (7), Section 13, Rule II of the 2010 PNP Manual. Reyes argued that without such information on the inventory, there is no basis for comparison to check whether the specimen submitted to the crime laboratory and in court was the same specimen confiscated. 34 For Reyes, failure to comply with the 2010 PNP Manual on the weighing of the drug evidence and indicate its weight in the documents required to be accomplished in handling evidence seized raises doubt as to its identity. 35

Issue

The issue to be resolved is whether the evidence of the prosecution was sufficient to convict Reyes of illegal sale of 10.36 grams of shabu.

Ruling of the Court

The Motion for Reconsideration of Reyes is meritorious.

The integrity and evidentiary value of

Reyes essentially assails that the evidence presented by the prosecution did not comply with Section 21 of R.A. 9165 and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were not properly preserved. The questions posited are evidently factual because they require careful examination of the evidence on record.

As a rule, the trial court's findings of fact are entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal. However, this rule does not apply where facts of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied in a case under appeal. 36 After a judicious examination of the records, this Court found material facts and circumstances that the lower courts had overlooked or misappreciated which, if properly considered, would justify a conclusion different from that arrived by the lower courts.

In cases involving illegal sale of dangerous drugs under R.A. 9165, the identity of the dangerous drug must be established with moral certainty as the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime. 37 Failure to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti renders the drugs seized insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, thus warranting an acquittal. Pursuant to Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, the provision governing chain of custody in drugs cases prior to the amendment by R.A. No. 10640, 38 the following must be observed: AcICHD

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[.]

Based on the foregoing, the presence of the following witnesses are required during the physical inventory: (1) a representative from the media and the DOJ; and (2) any elected public official. The presence of these witnesses during the marking of the seized items is an integral aspect of the physical inventory and the absence of these witnesses cast doubt on the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.

In People v. Rakman, 39 the Court acquitted the accused-appellant after determining that the prosecution failed to establish that the inventory and marking were done in accordance with the requirements laid down in Section 21, Article II of R.A. 9165 because only a media representative was present and the prosecution failed to prove that the apprehending officers exerted genuine and sufficient efforts in securing the presence of the required witnesses. 40 In the present case, it is not that only a media representative was present during the inventory and marking of the seized items, a representative from the DOJ, and any elected public official were not present during the inventory. 41

Although strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure may not always be possible, the lapses should be reasonably justified. In Limbo v. People, 42 the Court explained that:

x x x [N]on-compliance may be permitted if the prosecution proves that the apprehending officers exerted genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of such witnesses, albeit they eventually failed to appear. While the earnestness of these efforts must be examined on a case-to-case basis, the overarching objective is for the Court to be convinced that the failure to comply was reasonable under the given circumstances. Thus, mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses, are unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance. These considerations arise from the fact that 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 arrest — to prepare for a buy-bust operation and consequently, make the necessary arrangements beforehand, knowing fully well that they would have to strictly comply with the chain of custody rule. 43 (Citations omitted; emphasis supplied)

While Reyes' denial of the charges against him and his claim that he was framed-up was uncorroborated by any convincing evidence, the apparent weakness of his defense does not add any strength nor can it help the prosecution's cause. If the prosecution cannot establish, in the first place, Reyes' guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the need for the defense to adduce evidence in its behalf never arises. However weak the defense evidence might be, the prosecution's whole case still falls. The evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own weight and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense. 44

The Court recognizes that buy-bust operations are susceptible to abuse. The Court has acknowledged that "in some instances[,] law enforcers resort to the practice of planting evidence to extract information or even to harass civilians." 45 Thus, the Court must be extra vigilant in trying drugs cases. The presumption that the regular duty was performed by the arresting officer cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence of the accused. 46 In his Motion for Reconsideration, Reyes' raised arguments which cast doubt on the integrity and evidentiary value of the shabu he purportedly sold during the buy-bust operation and necessitates his acquittal.

In the present case, it is undisputed that the apprehending officers failed to comply with the witness requirement in Section 21 of R.A. 9165. PO3 Salonga admitted that he did not conduct an inventory of the seized items at the area of the apprehension and in the presence of any representative from the DOJ, media, and an elected official as revealed in the following exchange:

Atty. MANZANO:

Q Because of that you proceeded to the police station for a more thorough investigation of this case, correct?

A After I have marked the plastic sachet containing suspected shabu, ma'am.

Q When you marked the plastic sachet, Mr. Witness, it was not witnessed by media representative, DOJ representative, Barangay official, correct?

A Yes, ma'am.

Q Likewise, you said that the inventory was conducted already at the office?

A Yes, ma' am.

Q Because people were then approaching and uttering invectives against you?

A Yes, ma'am.

Q What was being uttered, Mr. Witness?

A They were uttering several invective words against us so we decided to bring the suspect and the confiscated/seized evidence to our office to avoid further commotion and we were only six (6) operatives at that time, ma'am.

Q You were armed at that time?

A I was not armed, ma'am, it was my back-up.

Q Five (5) of your team members were armed?

A Yes, ma'am.

xxx xxx xxx

Q How many people were shouting invectives at you?

A More or less fifty (50) persons were shouting invective words against us so we decided to go back to our office, your Honor.

xxx xxx xxx

Q The inventory was conducted without the presence of the representative from the Barangay and DOJ, correct?

A None, ma'am. 47

When confronted during cross-examination about the reason why none of the required witnesses were present at the time of the inventory, PO3 Salonga only had this to say: TAIaHE

It was our team leader who made the effort to contact the Barangay official and the representative from DOJ but nobody came, sir. 48

The foregoing statement is conspicuously inconsistent with PO3 Salonga's statement during his direct examination wherein he categorically stated that "[i]t was the investigator [PO2 Duazon] who contacted the barangay official." 49 This glaring inconsistency makes the claim of the apprehending officers that they exerted genuine efforts to secure the presence of the required witnesses more doubtful.

Even if the Court disregards the apparent inconsistency in PO3 Salonga's statements, his claim that his team leader "made the effort to contact" an elected official and a representative from the DOJ is, at best, self-serving. It was also not explained why the media representative was only present at the police station where actual inventory and marking were belatedly conducted. No proof was presented to establish that the police officers exerted genuine and sufficient effort to secure the presence of the required witnesses from the moment they received the tip at 2:00 pm on September 18, 2013 up to the time when the buy-bust operation transpired at 7:00 pm on the same day.

The members of the entrapment team were fully aware of repercussions of non-adherence to Section 21, particularly the compliance with the required witnesses during the inventory, marking, and photographing of the seized item. Non-compliance is fatal to the prosecution's cause especially when no justification is provided. The apprehending officers cannot feign ignorance of the requirements and procedure to be observed in Section 21 since these have also been incorporated in the 2010 PNP Manual.

The identity of the dangerous drugs Reyes allegedly sold to PO3 Salonga is also questionable due to the failure of the apprehending team to immediately weigh the seized item in accordance with the 2010 PNP Manual. Section 13, Rule II of the 2010 PNP Manual provides:

Section 13. Handling, Custody and Disposition of Drug Evidence. —

a. In the handling, custody and disposition of the evidence, the provision of Section 21, RA 9165 and its IRR shall be strictly observed.

b. Photographs of the pieces of evidence must be taken upon discovery without moving or altering its position in the place where it is situated, kept or hidden, including the process of recording the inventory and the weighing of dangerous drugs, and if possible under existing conditions, with the registered weight of the evidence on the scale focused by the camera, in the presence of persons required, as provided under Section 21, Art. II, RA 9165.

xxx xxx xxx

A — Drug Evidence

xxx xxx xxx

e. All the dangerous drugs and/or CPECs shall be properly marked for identification, weighed when possible or counted, sealed, packed and labeled. The items weighed in their gross weight, if already determined, should be noted on the inventory and chain of custody forms, or evidence vouchers. (Underscoring supplied)

The weighing of the dangerous drugs seized is clearly an important aspect in preserving its integrity and evidentiary value. Here, the apprehending officers did not even offer any justifiable explanation why they deviated from the clearly outline procedure in handling dangerous drugs evidence under the 2010 PNP Manual.

In People v. Otico, 50 the Court held that:

Given the failure to indicate the weight of the shabu in the documents required to be accomplished in the handling of the drug evidence starting from recovery of the shabu from the civilian agent to the request for laboratory examination to prove the regularity of the buy-bust operation and preserve the integrity of the recovered shabu, and to comply with the requirement in the PNP Manual on the weighing thereof, the object of the illegal sale has clearly not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. There is thus reasonable doubt that the alleged shabu, which was recovered from the civilian agent and bought by the latter from Otico, might not be the same one that was delivered to the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory Office 7 for examination. 51

In the present case, the Court observed that the weight of the seized shabu was visibly absent in certain documents accomplished in relation to the handling of the seized drugs from the time of confiscation to the turnover for laboratory examination. In particular, the Request for Laboratory Examination only described the specimen as "[o]ne (1) pieces [sic] transparent plastic sachet containing undetermined amount of suspected "Shabu," marked as FS/VR 9/18/13." 52 The same description was indicated in the Chain of Custody report, 53 Turn Over of Confiscated/Seized Evidence report, 54 and the Inventory Receipt. 55 The failure to immediately indicate the weight of the seized item, without any plausible explanation, renders its identity questionable. cDHAES

To establish the identity of the dangerous drug seized with moral certainty, the following links in the chain of custody must be established:

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 by the forensic chemist to the court. 56

In People v. Arposeple, 57 the Court emphasized the importance of the first link:

The first link in the chain of custody was undoubtedly inherently weak which caused the other links to miserably fail. The first link, it is emphasized, primarily deals on the preservation of the identity and integrity of the confiscated items, the burden of which lies with the prosecution. The marking has a twin purpose: viz.: first, to give the succeeding handlers of the specimen a reference, and second, to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the moment of seizure until their disposition at the end of criminal proceedings, thereby obviating switching, "planting," or contamination of evidence. Absent therefore the certainty that items that were marked, subjected to laboratory examination, and presented as evidence in court were exactly those that were allegedly seized from Arposeple, there would be no need to proceed to evaluate the succeeding links or to determine the existence of the other elements of the charges against appellants. Clearly, the cases for the prosecution had been irreversibly lost as a result of the weak first link irretrievably breaking away from the main chain.58 (Emphasis supplied)

Here, the first link in the chain of custody, the seizure and marking of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer, was not sufficiently established due to the absence of the required witnesses during the actual inventory and marking. Considering that the first link in the chain of custody is unreliable, there is no more need to discuss the subsequent links. Accordingly, the prosecution failed to demonstrate an unbroken chain of custody over the seized items and the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence against Reyes was not preserved.

While Reyes' denial of the charge against him and his claim that he was framed-up was uncorroborated by any convincing evidence, the apparent weakness of his defense does not add any strength nor can it help the prosecution's cause. If the prosecution cannot establish, in the first place, Reyes' guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the need for the defense to adduce evidence in its behalf never arises. However weak the defense evidence might be, the prosecution's whole case still falls. The evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own weight and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense. 59 To the Court's mind, the prosecution failed to prove compliance with the stringent rules and requirements governing chain of custody.

The Court has acknowledged that "in some instances[,] law enforcers resort to the practice of planting evidence to extract information or even to harass civilians." 60 Thus, the Court must be extra vigilant in trying drugs cases. The presumption that the regular duty was performed by the arresting officer cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence of the accused. 61 In this case, the Court finds that the integrity and evidentiary value of the shabu and drug paraphernalia purportedly seized from Reyes were compromised, thus necessitating his acquittal.

WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED. The Resolution dated July 22, 2019 of this Court is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Virgilio Reyes y Esquivel is ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-13-03460-CR for failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and is ORDERED to be IMMEDIATELY RELEASED unless he is being held for some other valid or lawful cause. The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to inform this Court of the action he has taken hereon within five (5) days from receipt hereof. ASEcHI

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. 41-45.

2.Id. at 39-40.

3.Id. at 17-18.

4. Penned by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Samuel H. Gaerlan (now a Member of this Court) and Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla; id. at 2-16.

5.Id.

6.Id. at 3.

7.Id. at 4-5.

8.Id. at 5.

9.Id. at 5-6.

10.Id. at 6.

11.Id. at 4, 6-7.

12.Id. at 4, 7.

13.Id. at 7.

14. Penned by Presiding Judge Nadine Jessica Corazon J. Fama; CA rollo, pp. 34-43.

15.Id. at 8-9.

16.Id. at 38-40.

17.Id. at 40-41.

18.Id. at 41-42.

19.Id. at 66.

20.Supra note 4.

21.Rollo, p. 15.

22.Id. at 11-13.

23.Id. at 14-15.

24.Id. at 17.

25.Id. at 22.

26.Id. at 26.

27.Id. at 34-35.

28.Id. at 39-40.

29.Id.

30.Id. at 41-45.

31.Id. at 42.

32.Id. at 42-43.

33.Id. at 43.

34.Id.

35.Id. at 44.

36.People v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 233544, March 25, 2019 citing People of the Philippines v. Ruben Robles, 604 Phil. 536 (2009).

37.People v. Crispo, G.R. No. 230065, March 14, 2018.

38. R.A. No. 10640 took effect on July 23, 2014. See OCA Circular No. 77-2015 dated April 23, 2015.

39. G.R. No. 245540, February 26, 2020.

40.Id.

41.Rollo, p. 14.

42. G.R. No. 238299, July 1, 2019.

43.Id.

44.People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214, 244 (2008).

45.People v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 233544, March 25, 2019, citing People v. Bintaib, 829 Phil. 13 (2018).

46.Id.

47. TSN dated October 8, 2014, pp. 12-14.

48. TSN dated October 8, 2014, p. 16.

49. TSN dated March 27, 2014, p. 12.

50. 832 Phil. 992 (2018).

51.Id. at 1015.

52. Records, p. 14.

53.Id. at 20.

54.Id. at 21.

55.Id. at 22.

56.People v. Siaton, 789 Phil. 87, 98-99 (2016).

57. 821 Phil. 340 (2017).

58.Id. at 368-369.

59.Supra note 45.

60.Supra note 46.

61.Id.