FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 247627. June 30, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.JOLLY ROMERO y MAGO @ "JULIUS", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 30, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 247627 (People of the Philippines v. Jolly Romero y Mago @ "Julius"). — Accused-appellant assails 1 the Decision 2 dated September 26, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08731, which affirmed the Joint Decision 3 dated August 2, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Valenzuela City, Branch 75, in Criminal Case Nos. 281-V-08 and 282-V-08, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9165, which punish the sale and possession of dangerous drugs, respectively.
Facts of the Case
Prosecution's Version
On March 16, 2008, PO2 Catherine S. Rame (PO2 Rame) of the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Unit (SAID-SOU) of PNP Valenzuela City was summoned by PSI Arthur Quiñones (PSI Quiñones) to discuss a call that he received from a concerned citizen regarding illegal drug activities of a certain "Julius," who turned out to be herein accused-appellant, at Sabino Alley, Maysan Road, Valenzuela City (Sabino Alley). PO2 Rame met with the concerned citizen to verify the information. Then, the concerned citizen introduced PO2 Rame to a confidential informant (CI) who was a frequent customer of accused-appellant. Upon the conduct of surveillance operations on March 17, 2008, the report of the concerned citizen regarding the illegal drug activities of accused-appellant was confirmed. 4
In the evening of March 22, 2008, the CI informed PO2 Rame that accused-appellant was selling marijuana at Sabino Alley. PO2 Rame immediately apprised PSI Quiñones of the development. Consequently, PSI Quiñones formed a buy-bust team composed of PO2 Rame as poseur-buyer, PO3 Arnel V. Cristobal (PO3 Cristobal) as arresting officer, 5 and others who acted as back-up officers. 6 During the meeting, it was agreed that a missed call from PO2 Rame to PO3 Cristobal would indicate the former's successful purchase of illegal drugs from accused-appellant. 7 CAIHTE
At around 12:30 a.m. of March 23, 2008, PO2 Rame fetched the CI at Maysan Road, Valenzuela City and brought him to the police station to prepare for the buy-bust operation. 8 There, PSI Quiñones handed PO2 Rame a dusted 9 P100.00 bill with Serial No. XM603796 10 as buy-bust money. PO2 Rame marked the bill with her initials, "CSR." 11
The buy-bust team arrived at Sabino Alley at around 1:30 a.m. of March 23, 2008. PO2 Rame and the CI went to the house of accused-appellant at No. 24, Sabino Alley while the other members of the buy-bust team positioned themselves nearby. PO2 Rame and the CI approached accused-appellant, seeing that he was outside his residence. 12 Addressing the CI, accused-appellant said "o, Noy bakit ka bumalik me kasama ka pang seksi?"13 ("oh, Noy, why did you return with a sexy lady?"). The CI responded, "gustong umiskor ng kasama ko"14 ("my companion wants to score"). Accused-appellant replied, "basta't ikaw meron, akin na ang piso mo" ("of course, give me one hundred pesos"). 15
PO2 Rame handed accused-appellant the P100.00 buy-bust money. Thereafter, accused-appellant went inside his house. Upon returning, he handed PO2 Rame a plastic sachet containing what appeared to be dried marijuana. To signify the consummation of the sale, PO2 Rame surreptitiously made a missed call to PO3 Cristobal. After a few seconds, the back-up team rushed to where PO2 Rame and accused-appellant were. Upon their arrival, PO3 Cristobal informed accused-appellant that he and his companions were police officers. PO3 Cristobal then frisked accused-appellant and recovered the P100.00 buy-bust money and one brick of suspected dried marijuana. 16
The police brought accused-appellant and the seized items to the Maysan Barangay Hall where PO2 Rame marked the plastic sachet containing suspected dried marijuana with her initials "CSR", and where PO3 Cristobal marked the brick of suspected dried marijuana with his initials "AVC." 17 Subsequently, PO3 Cristobal inventoried the items in the presence of Barangay Kagawad Baltazar Miranda (Kagawad Miranda) and Barangay Staff Felipe Venturina (Venturina), and prepared the Certification of Drug Inventory Report dated March 23, 2008 (Inventory Report). 18 The Inventory Report was signed by Kagawad Miranda and by Venturina. 19 Photographs of accused-appellant and the seized items were also taken at the Maysan Barangay Hall. 20
Accused-appellant and the seized items were then brought to the Valenzuela Police Station. 21 PO3 Rey B. Bragado (PO3 Bragado), investigator-on-case, 22 prepared a Request for Laboratory Examination dated March 23, 2008 (Request for Laboratory Examination). 23 PO3 Cristobal brought the Request for Laboratory Examination and the seized items, to the Northern Police District-Crime Laboratory Office, Caloocan City. 24 The seized items were received by one PO1 Pataueg at around 2:00 a.m. of March 23, 2008. 25 After examining the seized items, forensic chemist Albert S. Arturo issued Physical Science Report No. D-144-08 26 dated March 23, 2008 which confirmed that the seized items were indeed marijuana. 27
Accordingly, the State filed an Information 28 charging accused-appellant with a violation of RA 9165, Article II, Section 5: DETACa
That on or about March 23 , 2008 in Valenzuela City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without any authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell to PO1 Catherine S. Rame, who posed as buyer of three point thirty three grams (3.33) of dried marijuana fruiting tops, knowing the same to be a dangerous drug. 29
For accused-appellant's possession of one brick of marijuana, the State filed an Information charging him with a violation of RA 9165, Article II, Section 11:
That on or about March 23, 2008 in Valenzuela City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without any authority of law, did then and there wilfully, [sic] unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and control one (1) small brick of dried marijuana fruiting tops weighing 214.18 grams, knowing the same to be a dangerous drug. 30
Accused-appellant's Version
Accused-appellant claims that no buy-bust operation took place. He maintains that on 10:00 p.m. of March 22, 2008, someone knocked at his door and yelled, "pare, buksan mo"31 ("open the door"). When accused-appellant opened the door, PO3 Cristobal allegedly barged inside together with four other individuals, including PO2 Rame who was holding something. 32
PO3 Cristobal and his companions searched accused-appellant's house, while PO2 Rame stayed with accused-appellant. Because the search yielded nothing, PO1 Freddie Lim poked a gun at accused-appellant and asked him to point where the boxes of marijuana were. 33 PO3 Cristobal then asked him where the former residents of the house were. Accused-appellant said that he had no idea. As a result, PO3 Cristobal threatened accused-appellant and said, "Ituro mo na, ipapalit ulo kita." 34
At around 11:55 p.m. of March 22, 2008, accused-appellant was brought to the Valenzuela Police Station. Then, on 1:45 a.m. of March 23, 2008, he was brought to the Maysan Barangay Hall where PO2 Rame put marijuana on top of a table and took photographs of accused-appellant together with the prohibited drugs allegedly seized from him. Accused-appellant was later brought to Caloocan. 35
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
In its Joint Decision 36 dated August 2, 2016, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty of illegal sale of dangerous drugs because the prosecution sufficiently established the elements therefor. 37 The trial court also found that accused-appellant failed to show ill-motive on the part of the police officers who apprehended him. 38
Accused-appellant was also convicted of illegal possession of dangerous drugs 39 because he had in his possession "a dried brick of marijuana x x x without authority of law," 40 and because accused-appellant failed to provide any justification for such possession. 41
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
In its Decision 42 dated September 26, 2017, the CA affirmed the trial court's decision, and found that the prosecution proved the elements for illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The CA lent credence to the detailed testimony of PO2 Rame who positively identified accused-appellant as the person who sold her marijuana. 43
As regards the charge of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the CA found that PO3 Cristobal's testimony sufficiently established that accused-appellant freely possessed the prohibited drug without authority of law. 44 Finally, the CA held that the integrity and evidentiary value of the marijuana seized from accused-appellant was preserved. 45 aDSIHc
Proceedings before the Court
On October 7, 2019, the Court issued a Resolution 46 directing the parties to file their respective supplemental briefs within 30 days from notice.
The Public Attorney's Office filed a Supplemental Brief for the Accused-Appellant 47 dated June 23, 2020 wherein accused-appellant underscored the prosecution's non-compliance with the provisions of Section 21 of R.A. 9165, particularly the absence of essential witnesses (i.e., representatives of the media, the Department of Justice, and an elected public official) during his arrest and during the marking and inventory of the prohibited drugs allegedly confiscated from him.
The Office of the Solicitor General filed a Manifestation (In Lieu of Supplemental Brief) 48 dated January 28, 2020 declaring that it will no longer file a Supplemental Brief because the issues raised by accused-appellant have been exhaustively addressed in its Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee 49 dated August 16, 2017.
Ruling of the Court
The appeal is meritorious.
As the events involved in this case transpired in 2008, the provisions of R.A. 9165, the law in place at the time of the commission of the offense and the law more favorable to accused-appellant, shall apply. 50
R.A. 9165 prescribes the procedures to be observed in the custody and disposition of confiscated or seized dangerous drugs — otherwise known as the chain of custody. The chain of custody consists of four links, namely:
The following links that must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation: 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. 51
Failure to observe the rules governing each link of the chain of custody tarnishes the credibility of the corpus delicti and raises doubts as to whether the punishable act under R.A. 9165 was actually committed by the accused. 52 Accordingly, accused-appellant hinges his prayer for exoneration on the State's alleged failure to comply with the chain of custody rule. 53 He claims that the corpus delicti in this case cannot be relied upon "since 'planting' of the [marijuana] was already made possible because of the absence of all three (3) witnesses [required under Section 21 of R.A. 9165]." 54
We agree.
After a meticulous review of the records, it is evident that the State committed serious lapses pertaining to the chain of custody. The operatives of PNP SAID-SOU failed to ensure the attendance of the witnesses (i.e., an elected public official, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and a representative from the media) 55 required to observe the apprehension of accused-appellant and the seizure of the alleged marijuana from his person.
Having the necessary witnesses at the time of apprehension and seizure is vital because it forecloses the pernicious practice of planting of evidence or compromising its integrity. 56 In People v. Tomawis, 57 the Court extensively discussed the significance of this requirement: TIADCc
The presence of the witnesses from the DOJ, media, and from public elective office is necessary to protect against the possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drug. Using the language of the Court in People v. Mendoza, without the insulating presence of the representative from the media or the DOJ and any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the drugs, the evils of switching, "planting" or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of RA 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) again reared their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the subject sachet that was evidence of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused.
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. If the buy-bust operation is legitimately conducted, the presence of the insulating witnesses would also controvert the usual defense of frame up as the witnesses would be able to testify that the buy-bust operation and inventory of the seized drugs were done in their presence in accordance with Section 21 of RA 9165.
The practice of police operatives of not bringing to the intended place of arrest the three witnesses, when they could easily do so — and "calling them in" to the place of inventory to witness the inventory and photographing of the drugs only 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. 58 (Emphasis and underscoring in the original; citations omitted)
To be sure, the operatives of PNP SAID-SOU could have easily secured the attendance of the necessary witnesses if they were so minded. As early as March 19, 2008 PSI Quiñones, Team Leader of PNP SAID-SOU, was already aware of accused-appellant's alleged illegal drug activities. 59 Thus, the police operatives had six days to coordinate with the necessary witnesses and ensure their attendance for a possible buy-bust operation. A surveillance report 60 dated March 19, 2008, against accused-appellant was submitted by SPO Rame to her superior.
This notwithstanding, the records are bereft of any indication that the necessary witnesses were present at or near the buy-bust area when accused-appellant was arrested at Sabino Alley in the early hours of March 23, 2008. Kagawad Miranda — the only necessary witness procured by the PNP SAID-SOU — only observed the inventory of the seized items at the Maysan Barangay Hall. 61 Therefore, the PNP SAID-SOU operatives blatantly disregarded the safeguards enunciated in Section 21 of RA 9165 and reiterated in People v. Tomawis. 62
The operatives of the PNP SAID-SOU also failed to mark, photograph and inventory the seized items at the place of arrest. 63 In People v. Dahil, 64 We explained that marking "serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence x x x, thus preventing switching, planting, or contamination of evidence." 65 In this case, the seized items were only marked at the Maysan Barangay Hall, which was approximately 500 meters from Sabino Alley. 66 Hence, for a considerable length of time, the seized items were indistinguishable from other marijuana specimens in general, raising doubts as to their integrity and evidentiary value.
As regards the required photographs, the prosecution was only able to depict accused-appellant at the Maysan Barangay Hall 67 but not outside his residence at No. 24, Sabino Alley, where he was arrested. The testimony of PO2 Rame confirms that, indeed, no photographs were taken at the place of arrest.
Direct examination of PO2 Rame conducted by Prosecutor Almira B. Buce
Q: How about the place [where accused-appellant] was arrested, do you remember if there were pictures taken?
A: None, ma'am. 68
In an attempt to justify the conduct of inventory and photographing at Maysan Barangay Hall, PO3 Cristobal claimed that that was the standard procedure for PNP SAID-SOU. 69 We find the justification untenable. AIDSTE
In People v. Lim, 70 We held that:
Immediate physical inventory and photograph of the confiscated items at the place of arrest may [only] be excused in instances when the safety and security of the apprehending officers and the witnesses required by law or of the items seized are threatened by immediate or extreme danger such as retaliatory action of those who have the resources and capability to mount a counter-assault. 71
While the Court notes the presence of onlookers from neighboring houses after the arrest of accused-appellant, there is no showing that their presence posed any substantial danger to the PNP SAID-SOU operatives. As recalled by PO2 Rame:
Cross-examination of PO2 Rame conducted by Atty. Edgardo de Guzman:
Q: Considering that [it] is an alley[,] nobody try (sic) to intervene?
A: There were persons who went out of their houses, sir.
Q: But they never bother (sic) to intervene, is that correct?
A: No, sir. 72
The State likewise failed to have all necessary witnesses observe the inventory and photographing of the drugs allegedly seized from accused-appellant, 73 and sign copies of the inventory. 74 The Inventory Report was signed by only one of the necessary witness (i.e., Kagawad Miranda). 75 The spaces reserved for the signatures of the member of the media and the DOJ representative were left blank which implies that no such witnesses participated in the inventory proceedings. PO2 Rame's testimony underscores the absence of the two other necessary witnesses.
Direct examination of PO2 Rame conducted by Prosecutor Almira B. Buce:
Q: So Madam witness, aside from you, PO3 Cristobal, [Kagawad Miranda] and [Venturina], who else were inside the barangay hall [during the inventory]?
A: My companions in the operation ma'am.
Q: Are you referring to the other members of the [buy-bust] team?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: And who are these members?
A: PO3 Noli Dait, PO3 Ray Bragado, PO2 Harvy Aranas, PO2 Lester Aguado and PO1 Freddie Lim, ma'am. 76
The absence of the media and DOJ representatives was confirmed by PO3 Cristobal.
Cross-examination of PO3 Cristobal conducted by Atty. Scarlette Rose Abragan:
Q: Ok. But it was only [Venturina], [Kagawad Miranda], you[,] and [PO2 Rame] who participated in the drug inventory?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: And there was no representative from the DOJ at that time?
A: No, ma'am.
Q: And no representative from any members of the media?
A: Yes, ma'am. 77
Cross-examination of PO3 Cristobal conducted by Atty. Marjorie H. Mari:
Q: And you will agree with me that the inventory of this case did not happened (sic) at the place of arrest, as well as during the inventory, there is (sic) no representative from the DOJ and the media, correct?
A: Yes, ma'am. 78
Moreover, a perusal of the Inventory Report 79 shows that it was not signed by accused-appellant as required under Section 21 of R.A. 9165. 80 The signing of the inventory by the accused is not a trivial requirement. It is one of the safeguards which ensures the identity and integrity of the seized items. 81 SDAaTC
The State also failed to demonstrate the existence of the second link in the chain of custody (i.e., the turnover from the arresting officer to the investigating officer), and the safeguards taken by the investigating officer to ensure the integrity of the seized items. PO3 Bragado, the investigator-on-case, prepared the Request for Laboratory Examination. 82 Because he prepared the documents necessary for the development of the criminal case against accused-appellant, he had to have possession of the seized items. 83 However, the records are devoid of any indication as to how he ensured the integrity of the seized items while these were in his possession. 84
Finally, the stipulations regarding the testimony of forensic chemist Albert S. Arturo were insufficient. The prosecution merely stipulated that he was competent and qualified, that the Physical Science Report was duly executed, and that the marijuana existed. 85 In People v. Pajarin, 86 We explained that the forensic chemist's testimony may only be dispensed with on the basis of the following stipulations: (a) that he received the seized article as marked, properly sealed and intact, (b) that he resealed it after examination of the contents, (c) that he placed his own markings on the seized articles to ensure that it could not be tampered with during trial. 87
In light of the numerous lapses in the chain of custody, the State was unable to shield the corpus delicti from doubts as to its origin, identity and integrity. Although Section 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 9165 allows permissible non-compliance with chain of custody procedures, the State must establish justifiable grounds for non-compliance. In particular, the prosecution must: (a) recognize any lapses on the part of law enforcement operatives; and (b) be able to justify the same. 88
Nowhere in the record did the prosecution acknowledge that it had completely disregarded the witness, marking, inventory and photographing requirements prescribed under R.A. 9165. Moreover, the prosecution failed to put forth satisfactory reasons for non-compliance. 89 Therefore, the State's non-compliance with the chain of custody rule cannot be sanctioned.
Apart from the procedural infirmities discussed above, the Court finds the circumstances surrounding accused-appellant's alleged sale of illegal drugs to be far-fetched. According to the prosecution, accused-appellant asked for P100.00 ("Akin na ang piso mo") when the CI told him that PO2 Rame wanted to buy drugs. Thereafter, accused-appellant allegedly went to his house and handed PO2 Rame a plastic sachet containing marijuana upon his return. We find it incredible that a drug pusher would possess a 214-gram brick of marijuana knowing that the buyer is only looking to purchase marijuana equivalent to P100.00. It is more in accord with human experience that a person engaged in a nefarious enterprise would take reasonable precautions in dealing with strangers, such as PO2 Rame.
Because of the lapses in the chain of custody and the unbelievable circumstances surrounding the alleged buy-bust operation, We find that the State failed to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence enjoyed by the accused. 90
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated September 26, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08731 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Jolly Romero y Mago @ "Julius" is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court ORDERS the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections to IMMEDIATELY RELEASE accused-appellant Jolly Romero y Mago @ "Julius," unless the latter is being held for some other lawful cause. The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is likewise ORDERED to inform the Court of the date of the appellant's release, or the reason for his continued confinement, within ten (10) days from notice. Copies shall also be furnished to the Director General of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency. acEHCD
SO ORDERED." Zalameda, J., no part; Hernando, J., designated Additional Member per Raffle dated June 30, 2021.
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 27.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda (now a Member of this Court), with the concurrence of Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas-Peralta and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (now a Member of this Court); id. at 3-26.
3. Penned by Presiding Judge Lilia Mercedes Encarnacion A. Gepty; records, pp. 221-228.
4.Rollo, p. 4.
5.Id. at 4.
6. TSN dated March 2, 2012, p. 7.
7.Id.
8. TSN dated March 17, 2010, pp. 8-9.
9.Id. at 9.
10. Records, p. 50.
11.Id.; TSN dated March 17, 2010, p. 10.
12.Rollo, p. 5.
13. TSN dated March 17, 2010, p. 13.
14.Id.
15.Id.
16.Rollo, p. 5.
17.Id. at 6.
18. TSN dated March 2, 2012, p. 14; records, p. 41.
19. Records, p. 41; TSN dated March 17, 2010, p. 20.
20.Id. at 42.
21.Rollo, p. 6.
22. TSN dated February 10, 2016, p. 7.
23. Records, p. 44-A.
24. TSN dated October 5, 2012, p. 13.
25. Records, p. 46.
26.Id. at 45.
27. TSN dated October 5, 2012, p. 22.
28. Records, p. 1.
29.Id.
30.Id. at 221.
31. TSN dated May 4, 2016, p. 4.
32.Rollo, pp. 6-7.
33. TSN dated May 4, 2016, p. 6.
34.Id. at 7-8; "Palit ulo" is a target-swapping scheme where police officers would free an arrested person if he named another person in his stead; People v. Igpuara, G.R. No. 246418, February 26, 2020.
35.Rollo, p. 7.
36.Supra note 3.
37. Records, pp. 227-228.
38.Id. at 225.
39.Id. at 227-228.
40.Id. at 226.
41.Id.
42.Supra note 2.
43.Rollo, pp. 14-15.
44.Id. at 21-22.
45.Id. at 22-24.
46.Id. at 33-34.
47.Id. at 42-48.
48.Id. at 53-54.
49. CA rollo, pp. 70-84.
50.People v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 236304, November 5, 2018.
51.People v. Kamad, 624 Phil. 289, 304 (2010).
52.People v. Que, 824 Phil. 882, 896 (2018).
53. CA rollo, pp. 44-54.
54.Rollo, p. 52.
55.People v. Esguerra, G.R. No. 243986, January 22, 2020.
56.People v. Globa, G.R. No. 241251, December 10, 2019.
57. 830 Phil. 385 (2018).
58.Id. at 408-409.
59. Records, p. 55.
60.Id.
61. TSN dated March 17, 2010, pp. 20-21.
62.Supra note 57.
63. TSN dated February 10, 2016, p. 3.
64. 750 Phil. 212 (2015).
65.Id. at 232.
66. TSN dated March 4, 2014, pp. 8-9.
67. Records, p. 42.
68. TSN dated March 17, 2010, p. 23.
69. TSN dated February 10, 2016, p. 4.
70. G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.
71.Id.
72. TSN dated March 17, 2010, p. 35.
73.People v. Pis-an, G.R. No. 242692, July 13, 2020, citing Aranas v. People, G.R. No. 242315 , July 3, 2019.
74. Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165.
75. Records, p. 41.
76. TSN dated March 17, 2010, p. 22.
77. TSN dated March 14, 2014, pp. 9-10.
78. TSN dated February 10, 2016, p. 3.
79. Records, p. 41.
80.People v. Villarta, 828 Phil. 259, 291-292 (2018), citing People v. Havana, 776 Phil. 462, 475-476 (2016).
81.People v. Lesaca, G.R. No. 240223, January 19, 2021.
82. TSN dated February 10, 2016, p. 7; records, pp. 44-A, 172-173.
83.Supra note 64 at 235.
84.People v. Hementiza, 807 Phil. 1017, 1027 (2017), citing Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 587 (2008).
85. Records, p. 67.
86. 654 Phil. 461 (2011).
87.Id. at 466.
88.People v. Sarabia, G.R. No. 243190, August 28, 2019.
89. TSN dated February 10, 2016, p. 4.
90.Supra note 88.