THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 237353. April 26, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. DANIEL RONCAL y BALTAZAR and CESARIO LATAYAN y CALASARA, accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated April 26, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 237353 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, v. DANIEL RONCAL y BALTAZAR and CESARIO LATAYAN y CALASARA, accused-appellants.) — Courts should strictly apply the chain of custody rule and employ heightened scrutiny when only a minuscule amount of illicit drugs was seized from the accused. The unjustified absence of the required third-party witnesses during the actual arrest and seizure creates a gap in the chain of custody, producing doubt on the legitimacy of the buy-bust operation and the integrity and identity of the seized illicit drug.
This Court resolves an Appeal 1 assailing the Court of Appeals Decision 2 which upheld the Regional Trial Court Decision 3 convicting Cesario Latayan (Latayan) and Daniel Roncal (Roncal) for violating Section 5, and Latayan for violating Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.
On June 4, 2015, Latayan and Roncal were charged with violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. 4 The accusatory portion of the Information reads:
Criminal Case No. 15-1948
On June 1, 2015, in Makati, Philippines, accused, conspiring and confederating together and both of them mutually helping and aiding one another, without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously sell and deliver to PO1 Mauro A. Pagulayan, who posed as buyer, a plastic sachet containing zero point zero eight (0.08) gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug without the corresponding license or prescription therefor, in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
Latayan was also charged with violating Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165. The accusatory portion of the Information reads:
Criminal Case No. 15-1949
On June 1, 2015, in Makati, Philippines, accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess or otherwise use any dangerous drug and without the corresponding license or prescription, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have in his possession, direct custody and control zero point zero five (0.05) gram, zero point zero seven (0.07) gram, zero point one (0.10) gram and zero point zero seven (0.07) gram, for a total of zero point twenty-nine (0.29) gram, of white crystalline substance containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu, which is a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 6
On July 9, 2015, Latayan and Roncal were arraigned and entered pleas of not guilty to the offenses charged against them. The two cases were then consolidated. 7
After the preliminary and pre-trial conferences, trial ensued with the prosecution presenting Police Chief Inspector May Andrea Bonifacio (PCI Bonifacio), 8 Police Officer 1 Mauro Pagulayan (PO1 Pagulayan), and Police Officer 1 Louie Iraula (PO1 Iraula) as witnesses. 9
The prosecution evidence showed that on June 1, 2015, a confidential informant told the chief of the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Group about the illegal drug activities of "Anjing" within the area of Crusader Street, Barangay Southside, Makati City. 10
A buy-bust team was formed to respond to the report, with PO1 Pagulayan as the poseur buyer and PO1 Iraula as his backup. PO1 Pagulayan was provided with a marked P500.00 bill as his buy-bust money and the operation was coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency. The two police officers and the informant then proceeded to the target area 11 on their motorcycles. 12
Upon arriving near the target area, PO1 Pagulayan and the informant parked the motorcycle and walked towards Crusader Street, 13 while PO1 Iraula discreetly followed them. 14 PO1 Pagulayan saw Anjing with a male companion and approached them. The informant talked to Anjing and introduced PO1 Pagulayan as a buyer interested in P500.00 worth of shabu. Anjing's companion, Jun, asked for the money and PO1 Pagulayan gave him the marked bill. Anjing then brought out a plastic sachet and handed it to PO1 Pagulayan. 15
After receiving the sachet, PO1 Pagulayan lit a cigarette, the pre-arranged signal, to inform PO1 Iraula of the consummation of the transaction. PO1 Pagulayan then grabbed Anjing and Jun, who were later on identified to be Latayan and Roncal, respectively, and introduced himself to be a police officer. PO1 Iraula soon appeared and arrested Latayan and Roncal. 16
PO1 Pagulayan patted down Latayan and recovered four plastic sachets with white crystalline substance and a 9mm Beretta replica. 17 On the other hand, PO1 Iraula searched Roncal and recovered one .38 caliber revolver with live ammunition and the marked money. The police officers then apprised them of their constitutional rights. 18
The police officers brought Latayan and Roncal and the confiscated items to the barangay hall of Barangay Southside, Makati. PO1 Pagulayan kept the plastic sachet bought from the accused in his right front pocket while he held on to the other recovered sachets. 19 Photographs were taken during the inventory, which was conducted in the presence of Barangay Kagawad Danilo Tolentino (Barangay Kagawad Tolentino). 20 The plastic sachet purchased from Latayan was marked with "MAP" while the four other recovered sachets were marked as "MAP-1," "MAP-2," "MAP-3," and "MAP-4." 21
From the barangay hall, the police officers brought Latayan and Roncal, and the confiscated items, to the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Group. 22 An investigator prepared the necessary requests for laboratory examination of the confiscated items. 23 PO1 Pagulayan brought the requests and recovered sachets to the crime laboratory and turned them over to PCI Bonifacio, who conducted the qualitative examination. 24
PCI Bonifacio testified that the recovered sachets all tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. PCI Bonifacio also testified that the urine samples recovered from Latayan and Roncal tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride but negative for THC-metabolites. 25
On the other hand, the defense presented Latayan, Roncal, and Patricia Latayan (Patricia) as its witnesses. 26
Latayan testified that on May 31, 2015, between 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., he was inside his house having a drinking and karaoke session with Roncal, France Mendez (Mendez), and a certain Rico, when two armed men, who introduced themselves as police officers, barged inside the house. 27
The two men instructed Latayan and his companions to keep quiet while they searched Latayan's house without showing a search warrant. Their search did not yield anything, but they still brought the men to the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Group Office. 28 The police officers demanded that each man give them P20,000.00. 29
The following day, Latayan and Roncal were brought to the barangay hall and Latayan saw for the first time the sachets of shabu which the police officers claimed to have recovered from him and Roncal. 30
Latayan denied being arrested in a buy-bust operation or that firearms were recovered from him. He likewise denied knowing any of the police officers who arrested him. 31
Roncal corroborated Latayan's testimony and added that the two other men arrested, Mendez and Rico, were released after they paid P20,000.00 each to the police officers. 32
Patricia, daughter of Latayan, testified that on May 31, 2015, between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., she was sleeping inside her room when she was awakened by a loud noise. She went out of her room and saw her father and his companions in handcuffs. She saw the police officers search the house and take her father and his friends to the police station. 33
On December 17, 2015, 34 the Regional Trial Court found Latayan and Roncal guilty of the charges against them.
The Regional Trial Court found that the prosecution proved Latayan and Roncal's guilt beyond reasonable doubt by establishing all the elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. 35 It also ruled that the prosecution proved the corpus delicti by showing adherence to the chain of custody rule. It explained that the failure to strictly comply with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 was not always fatal, so long as the integrity of the seized evidence is preserved. 36
Finally, the Regional Trial Court upheld the presumption of regularity accorded to the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation. The trial court ruled that Latayan and Roncal failed to overcome this presumption. 37
The dispositive portion of the Regional Trial Court Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. 15-1948, the court finds both accused, Cesario Latayan y Calasara and Daniel Roncal y Baltazar, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 5, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 and sentences each of them to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).
2. In Criminal Case No. 15-1949, the court finds the accused, Cesario Latayan y Calasara, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 11, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 and sentences him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months, as maximum, and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00).
The period of detention of the accused should be given full credit.
Let the dangerous drugs subject matter of these cases be disposed of in the manner provided for by law.
The Branch Clerk of Court is directed to transmit the plastic sachets containing shabu subject matter of these cases to the PDEA for said agency's appropriate disposition.
SO ORDERED. 38
Latayan and Roncal appealed the Regional Trial Court Decision with the Court of Appeals. 39
On August 11, 2017, the Court of Appeals affirmed 40 the Regional Trial Court judgment, finding that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the charges of illegal sale 41 and illegal possession 42 of dangerous drugs against Latayan and Roncal.
The Court of Appeals likewise found that the arresting officers substantially complied with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, or the chain of custody rule, and that they preserved the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. 43
Finally, the Court of Appeals rejected Latayan and Roncal's defense of denial for being self-serving. 44
The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated December 17, 2015 rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 65, Makati City, is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 45 (Emphasis in the original)
Accused-appellants filed their Notice of Appeal, 46 which the Court of Appeals gave due course to. 47
This Court notified 48 the parties that they may file their respective supplemental briefs. Accused-appellants 49 and plaintiff-appellee 50 both manifested that they would no longer file their supplemental briefs and would instead be adapting the briefs they filed before the Court of Appeals.
In their Appellants' Brief, 51 accused-appellants assert that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of custody, compromising the integrity and identity of the purportedly seized sachets of dangerous drugs. 52
Accused-appellants point out that the sachets were not immediately marked upon their seizure, as the arresting team waited for 10 to 15 minutes before marking them, thus creating "an opportunity for alteration, substitution or contamination." 53 They also point out that the seized sachets were not immediately inventoried at the crime scene, instead, they were inventoried at a barangay hall and only after a barangay kagawad arrived to witness the inventory. 54
Accused-appellants likewise highlight the prosecution's failure to establish how PO1 Pagulayan ensured the integrity of the seized sachets from the time they were marked, inventoried, and tuned over to the crime laboratory for examination. PO1 Pagulayan only testified that after recovering the sachets, he placed them inside his pocket before going to the barangay hall. 55
Accused-appellants maintain that considering the procedural lapses during the operation, the prosecution was unable to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the charges against them. 56
On the other hand, the People of the Philippines, through the Solicitor General, 57 contends that the prosecution established a complete chain of custody of the shabu sachets seized from accused-appellants because a justified deviation from the chain of custody rule is acceptable as long as the evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. 58
Plaintiff-appellee also points out that the arresting officers' failure to immediately mark and inventory the seized sachets at the place of seizure does not automatically render the confiscated items inadmissible as evidence and does not create a gap in the chain of custody. 59 It likewise stresses that accused-appellants were unable to overcome the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties enjoyed by the arresting officers. 60
The sole issue for this Court's resolution is whether or not the prosecution proved accused-appellants Daniel Roncal y Baltazar and Cesario Latayan y Calasara's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crimes of illegal possession and illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
The appeal is granted.
Section 5 61 of Republic Act No. 9165 punishes the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, which has the following elements: "(1) proof that the transaction or sale took place and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence." 62
On the other hand, Section 11 63 of Republic Act No. 9165 punishes the illegal possession of dangerous drugs, and its elements are: "(1) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug, (2) such possession is not authorized by law, and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug." 64
The corpus delicti in both illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs are the seized drugs. The prosecution has the burden of convincing the court that the drug recovered from the accused is the same drug presented in court as evidence. The prosecution establishes this by maintaining an unbroken chain of custody of the seized illegal drug.
Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640, provides for the chain of custody rule by imposing strict requirements on the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered drugs, and/or drug paraphernalia:
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 dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items 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, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media 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, finally, That noncompliance of 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 and custody over said items[;]
2. Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination;
3. A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued immediately upon the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the time frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided, however, That a final certification shall be issued immediately upon completion of the said examination and certification[.]
People v. Tanes65 summarized the chain of custody procedure laid out in Section 21 (1):
(1) the seized items must be inventoried and photographed immediately after seizure or confiscation; (2) the physical inventory and photographing must be done in the presence of (a) the accused or his/her representative or counsel, (b) an elected public official, (c) a representative from the media, and (d) a representative from the DOJ, all of whom shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. 66
People v. Holgado67 explained that the chain of custody requirements ensures the integrity of the seized drug in four ways:
[F]irst, the nature of the substances or items seized; second, the quantity (e.g., weight) of the substances or items seized; third, the relation of the substances or items seized to the incident allegedly causing their seizure; and fourth, the relation of the substances or items seized to the person/s alleged to have been in possession of or peddling them. Compliance with this requirement forecloses opportunities for planting, contaminating, or tampering of evidence in any manner. 68
Conversely, noncompliance or a gap in the chain of custody results in "a concomitant failure on the part of the prosecution to establish the identity of the corpus delicti[,]" 69 leading to the prosecution's failure to discharge its burden of proving the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Here, the prosecution failed to account for several gaps in the chain of custody. First, the seized items were not inventoried and photographed immediately after confiscation; and second, the inventory in the barangay hall was not witnessed by the required third-party witnesses.
Plaintiff-appellee attempts to downplay the gaps by saying that a justified deviation from Section 21 was acceptable here, as the arresting officers preserved the evidentiary value of the seized items. 70
Plaintiff-appellee is mistaken.
It is true that the law recognizes that strict compliance with Section 21 might not be possible at all times, hence the saving clause provided for in Section 21 (1) of Republic Act No. 10640: "[T]hat noncompliance of 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 and custody over said items."
However, for the prosecution to benefit from the saving clause, it must have shown a justifiable ground for its failure to strictly comply with Section 21. Here, the prosecution utterly failed to present a reason for its failure to immediately inventory the seized items. It likewise failed to explain why only a barangay official was present during the inventory and account for the absence of the representative from the media and Department of Justice.
The prosecution did not even bother to present a justifiable ground for the gaps in the chain of custody, preferring instead to seek solace under the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties accorded to the arresting officers.
In People v. Tomawis, 71 this Court emphasized that because seized items in planned buy-bust operations were required to be physically inventoried and photographed immediately upon seizure, it followed that the third-party witnesses must have been present during the actual transaction to guarantee the legitimacy of the buy-bust operation and the integrity of the seized drug:
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.
To restate, the presence of the three witnesses at the time of seizure and confiscation of the drugs must be secured and complied with at the time of the warrantless arrest; such that they are required to be at or near the intended place of the arrest so that they can be ready to witness the inventory and photographing of the seized and confiscated drugs "immediately after seizure and confiscation." 72
The arresting officers confiscated several sachets of shabu from accused-appellants, which combined weight was only 0.37 gram. The minuscule amount seized should have prompted the trial court to employ heightened scrutiny in assessing the prosecution's evidence, as the possibility of tampered evidence dramatically increases the smaller the amount of seized drug. 73People v. Holgado instructs:
Trial courts should meticulously consider the factual intricacies of cases involving violations of Republic Act No. 9165. All details that factor into an ostensibly uncomplicated and barefaced narrative must be scrupulously considered. Courts must employ heightened scrutiny, consistent with the requirements of proof beyond reasonable doubt, in evaluating cases involving minuscule amounts of drugs. These can be readily planted and tampered. 74
The prosecution's failure to strictly comply with the chain of custody requirements in Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, coupled with its failure to provide justifiable grounds for its noncompliance, creates reasonable doubt on the identity of the seized illegal drugs, thereby warranting the acquittal of accused-appellants of the charges against them.
WHEREFORE, the August 11, 2017 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08105 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellants Cesario Latayan y Calasara and Daniel Roncal y Baltazar are ACQUITTED of the charges against them for the prosecution's failure to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They are ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless they are confined for any other lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections for immediate implementation. The Director General is directed to report to this Court, within five days from receipt of this Resolution, the action he has taken. Copies shall also be furnished to the Police General of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for their information.
The Regional Trial Court is directed to turn over the seized sachets of shabu to the Dangerous Drugs Board for destruction in accordance with law.
Let entry of judgement be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) RUMAR D. PASIONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 23.
2.Id. at 2-22. The August 11, 2017 Decision docketed as CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08105 was penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and concurred in by Associate Rodil V. Zalameda (now a member of this Court) and Ma. Luisa Quijano-Padilla of the Eight Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
3. CA rollo, pp. 50-57. The December 17, 2015 Decision docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 15-1948 to 15-1949 was penned by Presiding Judge Edgardo M. Caldona.
4.Rollo, p. 3.
5.Id.
6.Id. at 3-4.
7.Id.
8.Id.
9. Ca rollo, p. 51.
10.Id. at 51-52.
11.Id. at 52.
12.Rollo, p. 5.
13.Id.
14. Ca rollo, p. 52.
15.Id.
16.Id.
17.Rollo, p. 6.
18. CA rollo, p. 52.
19.Rollo, p. 6.
20.Id.
21.Id.
22. CA rollo, p. 52.
23.Rollo, p. 6.
24.Id.
25.Id.
26. CA rollo, p. 53.
27.Id.Rollo, p. 7.
28.Rollo, p. 7.
29.Id.
30.Id.
31.Id.
32.Id.
33. CA rollo, p. 53.
34.Id. at 50-57.
35.Id. at 54-55.
36.Id. at 55-56.
37.Id. at 56.
38.Id. at 57.
39.Rollo, p. 2.
40.Id. at 2-22.
41.Id. at 13-14.
42.Id. at 14-15.
43.Id. at 18-19.
44.Id. at 19-20.
45.Id. at 22.
46.Id. at 23.
47.Id. at 27.
48.Id. at 29.
49.Id. at 42.
50.Id. at 37-38.
51. CA rollo, pp. 31-48.
52.Id. at 40.
53.Id.
54.Id. at 42-43.
55.Id. at 44.
56.Id. at 46.
57.Id. at 84-99.
58.Id. at 91-94.
59.Id. at 94-96.
60.Id. at 96-97.
61. Republic Act No. 9165 (2002), sec. 5 provides:
SECTION 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.
62.People v. Morales, 630 Phil. 215, 228 (2010) [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division], citing People v. Darisan, et al., 597 Phil. 479, 458 (2009) [Per J. Corona, First Division].
63. Republic Act No. 9165 (2002), sec. 11 provides:
SECTION 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof[.]
64.People v. Morales, 630 Phil. 215, 228 (2010) [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division], citing People v. Darisan, et al., 597 Phil. 479, 485 (2009) [Per J. Corona, First Division].
65.People v. Tanes, G.R. No. 240596, April 3, 2019, <http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph./thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65152> [Per J. Caguioa, Second Division].
66.Id.
67.People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78-101 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
68.Id. at 93.
69.People v. Morales, 630 Phil. 215, 229 (2010) [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division].
70. CA rollo, pp. 91-94.
71. 830 Phil. 385-422 (2018) [Per J. Caguioa, Second Division].
72.Id. at 409.
73.People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78-101 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
74.Id. at 100.