THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 239888. June 28, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ISAAC SINSUAT y TAN a.k.a. "BONG", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated June 28, 2021, which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 239888 (People of the Philippines v. Isaac Sinsuat y Tan a.k.a. "Bong"). — On appeal 1 is the October 24, 2017 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08874 affirming the October 27, 2016 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 23, in Criminal Case No. 15-320027. The RTC found accused-appellant Isaac Sinsuat y Tan (accused-appellant/Sinsuat) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 11 (2), Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Antecedents:
The Information 4 filed against Sinsuat for violation of Section 11 (2), Article II of RA 9165 alleges:
That on or about September 18, 2015, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, not being authorized by law to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession and under his custody or control one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with markings and recorded net weight as follows:
|
"IST" |
containing EIGHT POINT ONE ONE TWO (8.112) grams |
of white crystalline substance containing Methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as "shabu," a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law. 5
Upon arraignment, Sinsuat pleaded not guilty to the charge. 6 Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
The prosecution alleged that on September 18, 2015, Police Officer 3 Jason Magbitang (PO3 Magbitang) and PO3 Ben Oril (PO3 Oril) were conducting foot patrol along Sampaloc Market in Manila pursuant to their anti-criminality campaign. While patrolling, the police officers chanced upon Sinsuat, who was examining a small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with what appeared to be white crystalline substance. Sensing that it was an illegal drug, PO3 Magbitang immediately approached and arrested accused-appellant. PO3 Magbitang was able to recover the sachet from Sinsuat's right hand and, upon confiscation, marked the sachet with "IST." 7
Thereafter, an inventory 8 was prepared by PO3 Magbitang, signed by Barangay Chairperson Cynthia Escauso (Brgy. Chairperson Escauso) and accused-appellant Sinsuat. PO3 Oril also took photographs during the signing of the inventory in the barangay hall and of accused-appellant in their office. 9
Afterwards, PO3 Magbitang turned over the seized item to PO3 Oril. The latter delivered the Request for Laboratory Examination 10 along with the subject specimen to Police Chief Inspector Elisa Reyes-Arturo (PCI Reyes-Arturo) in the Manila Police District Crime Laboratory. 11 After qualitative examination, she found that the specimen tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, as shown in Chemistry Report No. D-909-15. 12 In view of the stipulations agreed upon by the parties with respect to PCI Reyes-Arturo's testimony, she was no longer presented in court. 13
For its part, the defense presented accused-appellant as its lone witness. Sinsuat denied the charge against him and claimed that the illegal drugs allegedly seized from him were planted evidence. He testified that on the morning of September 18, 2015, he was waiting for the opening of Isetann mall, where he worked as a cellphone technician. Suddenly, PO3 Magbitang and PO3 Oril, who were on board their vehicle, called him over. Thinking that they were going to ask about his cellphone repair services, he obliged and walked toward their vehicle. To Sinsuat's surprise, he was asked to board the vehicle and was taken to the police station. 14
Upon arrival at the police station, PO3 Oril hid him inside a metal cabinet for about 30 minutes. When PO3 Oril brought Sinsuat out, the latter asked him what offense he had committed. PO3 Oril answered that he was going to be charged with vagrancy. However, Sinsuat later learned during inquest proceedings that he was being charged with a drug-related case. 15
On cross-examination, Sinsuat testified that he did not see any plastic sachet of drugs before inquest. Although he admitted to signing the receipt/inventory of property seized, he insisted that it happened after he was brought to the Office of the City Prosecutor for inquest. 16
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:
In its October 27, 2016 Decision, the trial court found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime charged. The dispositive portion thereof reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused Isaac Sinsuat y Tan @ "Bong" is found guilty of the herein charge and is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment for twenty (20) years and one (1) day as minimum to [life imprisonment] as maximum and to pay a fine of four hundred thousand pesos (PhP400,000.00).
The one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with markings "IST" containing shabu, subject of the instant case, is hereby forfeited in favor of the State and ordered destroyed immediately pursuant to existing Rules.
SO ORDERED. 17
The trial court held that the prosecution successfully established all the elements of the illegal possession of dangerous drugs. It noted that PO3 Magbitang positively identified Sinsuat and the illegal drugs seized in open court. It found the prosecution witnesses credible in the absence of any ill-motive on the part of the police officers to impute a drug charge against accused-appellant. 18
Moreover, the trial court ruled that the chain of custody had been properly preserved, from the time the item was seized from accused-appellant until its presentation in court. Although it noted that there was no strict compliance with the procedural safeguards under RA 9165 due to the absence of representatives from the media and Department of Justice (DOJ), it opined that the police officers substantially complied with the aforementioned rules since the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. 19
It also noted that accused-appellant's admission of signing the inventory belied his claim that he was first brought in for inquest proceedings before he was taken to the barangay hall where he signed the inventory. It pointed out that the receipt/inventory of property seized was dated September 18, 2015, while the inquest disposition/resolution was dated September 19, 2015. 20
Aggrieved, accused-appellant elevated 21 the case before the CA. He claimed that despite not raising the irregularity of his arrest during trial, the waiver did not carry with it the waiver of the inadmissibility of the evidence seized during an invalid warrantless arrest. He argued that the arresting officers, who admitted to arresting him based on mere suspicion, had no probable cause to believe that he had just committed a crime. Since his arrest was illegal, he contended that the evidence obtained from the subsequent unreasonable search and seizure was inadmissible. 22
Sinsuat further argued that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody. He emphasized that the request for laboratory examination belies PO3 Oril's testimony that he turned over the seized item he received from PO3 Magbitang to one "Major Arturo" in the crime laboratory. He pointed out that the document indicated that the seized drug was received by a certain PO3 Castillo at 6:05 p.m., a certain PO3 Eyyoma at 6:20 p.m., and PCI Reyes-Arturo at 6:25 p.m. Consequently, Sinsuat contended that the inconsistency between PO3 Oril's testimony and the request for laboratory examination created a significant break in the chain of custody. 23
Moreover, the stipulations on the testimony of PCI Reyes-Arturo were limited only to the preparation and authentication of the chemistry report and its actual turnover to the branch clerk of court. Notably, there is no record of who exercised custody over the drug specimen after PCI Reyes-Arturo examined it. 24
Lastly, accused-appellant averred that the arresting officers failed to comply with RA 9165. He contended that the marking and inventory of the seized item were not done in the presence of representatives from both the media and DOJ, and a barangay official. Even if it appears that Barangay Chairperson Escauso signed the inventory, she only affixed her signature thereto, without actually witnessing its preparation. 25
While noncompliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 is not always fatal, Sinsuat stressed that the police officers failed to offer a justifiable ground for their noncompliance. As a result, he maintained that the presumption of regularity in the performance of the police officers' duties cannot be upheld. 26
On the other hand, the People, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), maintained that Sinsuat was validly arrested during an anti-criminality campaign by foot-patrol. It claimed that the corroborative testimonies of the arresting officers prove that they saw accused-appellant in possession of a plastic sachet containing what appeared to be white crystalline substance in broad daylight. Thus, accused-appellant's arrest was prompted by his overt act of possessing dangerous drugs. In any case, it maintained that Sinsuat can no longer assail the validity of his arrest at this stage since he already voluntarily participated in the proceedings. 27
The OSG also argued that the procedural safeguards under Section 21 of RA 9165 were substantially complied with. It pointed out that the inventory was done in the presence of accused-appellant and the barangay chairperson. In any case, it maintained that the identity of the seized item was preserved, from the time the request for laboratory examination was made, to the turnover of the specimen from the police station to the laboratory and until its presentation in court. It emphasized that strict adherence to Section 21 of RA 9165 is not always required as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item are preserved. 28
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
In its October 24, 2017 Decision, the CA affirmed the findings of the trial court. The fallo of the appellate court's Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Appeal is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, the Decision dated 27 October 2016 rendered by Branch 23, Regional Trial Court of Manila is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED. 29
In upholding the validity of accused-appellant's arrest, the appellate court gave credence to PO3 Magbitang's testimony that he saw Sinsuat discreetly examining a plastic sachet containing what appeared to be shabu. Evidently, Sinsuat was caught in flagrante delicto by his unauthorized possession of the illegal drug. By virtue of the validity of Sinsuat's arrest, there is no issue as to the admissibility of the evidence obtained from him. 30
The appellate court disregarded Sinsuat's contention that there was a major gap in the chain of custody. It ruled that the narration of events by the prosecution witnesses sufficiently established an unbroken chain of custody. Moreover, accused-appellant failed to show that the arresting officers were prompted by ill-motive to tamper with the evidence. Accordingly, the CA upheld the presumption of regularity in the performance of the police officers' duties. 31
Hence, this appeal.
Our Ruling
We find merit in the appeal.
Warrantless Search and Seizure:
The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is enshrined in Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution:
Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. 32
As a general rule, a judicial warrant based on the existence of probable cause is required before a search and an arrest may be effected. 33 Any evidence obtained in violation of this rule becomes inadmissible. 34
Nevertheless, the rule admits of several exceptions, such as a search incidental to a lawful arrest. 35 Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court provides:
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant, when lawful. — A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof, the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and he shall be proceeded against in accordance with Section 7, Rule 112. 36
In warrantless arrests made pursuant to Section 5 (a), Rule 113, two requisites must concur: "a) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that [they have] just committed, [are] actually committing, or [are] attempting to commit a crime; and (b) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer." 37 Thus, the arresting officer must personally witness the commission of an offense. 38
Moreover, if the search is contemporaneous with an arrest, a determination of the existence of probable cause to effect an arrest shall be made. As held in People v. Racho: 39
x x x in searches incident to a lawful arrest, the arrest must precede the search; generally, the process cannot be reversed. Nevertheless, a search substantially contemporaneous with an arrest can precede the arrest if the police have probable cause to make the arrest at the outset of the search. Thus, given the factual milieu of the case, we have to determine whether the police officers had probable cause to arrest appellant. Although probable cause eludes exact and concrete definition, it ordinarily signifies a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious [person] to believe that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which [they] is charged. 40 (Emphasis supplied)
In the case at bar, We find the circumstances leading to Sinsuat's arrest insufficient to create a reasonable suspicion that he possessed shabu. The factual milieu leading to accused-appellant's arrest was described by PO3 Magbitang during trial:
Q: What happened when you were conducting foot patrol?
A: We chanced upon [accused-appellant] in the act of examining [a] small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: [You saw him] examining an item. What is that item?
A: [A] small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance.
Q: Where did you see him?
A: [In] the side street of Sampaloc, Manila.
Q: Upon seeing him examining the substance, what did you do?
A: Sensing that it is illegal drugs, I immediately approached [him] and arrested [him].
Q: After you arrested him, were you able to recover anything?
A: [I recovered] a small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet from his right hand.
Q: How many plastic sachet[s]?
A: One only, ma'am. 41
xxx xxx xxx
[Cross Examination]
Q: x x x there were three of you [uniformed] police officers x x x and there was this person openly examining a plastic sachet containing shabu [in a public place]?
A: The suspect [was] discreetly examining the [shabu].
Q: x x x You arrested him on suspicion that the same is an alleged illegal [drug]?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Aside from that suspicion, was the accused committing any other crime?
A: No sir.
Q: Based on the suspicion, you arrested him?
A: Yes sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: How far were you [from the accused-appellant] when you saw the [him] examining the plastic sachet?
A: From where I am seated to where you are sitting now.
Q: How [did he] discreetly [examine the sachet containing the alleged drug]?
A: Patago siya at hawak ng kanang kamay niya, at nakita ko [kasi] sa likod [niya] ako nanggaling x x x
Q: So you already proceeded to arrest him?
A: From my experience, walang ibang plastic na nakalagay sa ganung klaseng sachet kung hindi ang pinaghihinalaang drugs. 42 (Emphasis supplied)
Considering that PO3 Magbitang was behind Sinsuat and at a considerable distance from him, and the weight of the alleged seized drug to be only eight grams, it is highly doubtful that PO3 Magbitang identified the contents of the sachet with reasonable accuracy. The act of examining a small plastic sachet is not tantamount to committing a crime. We find that PO3 Magbitang proceeded to arrest accused-appellant not based on the fact that the latter was committing a crime. His experience as a police officer immediately made him conclude that Sinsuat, who was merely examining the contents of a sachet, without more, was already in possession of shabu. Consequently, Sinsuat's mere act of holding and examining a plastic sachet, without any other attending circumstances, falls short in arousing suspicion that he had just committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime. The case of People v. Dominguez43 is instructive:
The circumstances as stated above do not give rise to a reasonable suspicion that Dominguez was in possession of shabu. From a meter away, even with perfect vision, SPO1 Parchaso would not have been able to identify with reasonable accuracy the contents of the plastic sachet. Dominguez' acts of standing on the street and holding a plastic sachet in his hands, are not by themselves sufficient to incite suspicion of criminal activity or to create probable cause enough to justify a warrantless arrest. In fact, SPO1 Parchaso's testimony reveals that before the arrest was made, he only saw that Dominguez was holding a small plastic sachet. 44 (Emphasis supplied)
Integrity and Evidentiary Value of
Even assuming arguendo that accused-appellant was validly arrested and the subsequent search was valid, the prosecution still failed to prove the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item.
In prosecuting dangerous drugs cases, it is essential that the identity of the seized drugs from the accused be established beyond reasonable doubt, such that the prohibited drugs offered in court are the same as those recovered from the accused. 45 Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 provides for the procedural requirements in the seizure, custody, and handling of confiscated illegal drugs and/or paraphernalia:
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors und 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 persons 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 supplied)
Furthermore, Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165, provides:
SEC. 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 persons 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. (Emphasis supplied)
In People v. Sendad, 46 We clarified the required witnesses under Section 21:
The law further requires that the said inventory and photography be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, of his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: (a) if prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, a representative from the media AND the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official; or (b) if after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, "[a]n elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service OR the media." (Citations Omitted)
In the case at bar, the alleged crime was committed in 2015, or after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640. Thus, the required witnesses to the inventory and taking of photograph are: (1) any elected public official; and (2) a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media. Nonetheless, the Court allows substantial compliance with the abovementioned rules as long as the prosecution proves (1) a justifiable ground for noncompliance; and (2) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. 47 In People v. Lim, 48 the Court enumerated justifiable reasons for noncompliance with the three-witness-rule during the inventory and taking of photograph:
(1) their attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was a remote area; (2) their safety during the inventory and photograph of the seized drugs was threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of the accused or any person/s acting for and in his/her behalf; (3) the elected official themselves were involved in the punishable acts sought to be apprehended; (4) earnest efforts to secure the presence of a DOJ or media representative and an elected public official within the period required under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code prove futile through no fault of the arresting officers, who face the threat of being charged with arbitrary detention; or (5) time constraints and urgency of the anti-drug operations, which open rely on tips of confidential assets, prevented the law enforcers from obtaining the presence of the required witnesses even before the offenders could escape. 49
However, none of the following reasons are present in this case.
Out of the required witnesses, We note that only Barangay Chairperson Escauso was present during the inventory and taking of photograph of the seized item. 50 The prosecution did not even bother to explain the absence of a representative from the National Prosecution Service or media. There was also nothing on record to indicate that genuine efforts were made to secure their presence. In fine, this Court is not convinced that the noncompliance with the procedural requirements under Section 21 was justified as no plausible explanation was offered. Consequently, the presumption of regularity in the performance of the police officers' duties does not apply. 51
To conclude, the shabu allegedly seized from Sinsuat is inadmissible in evidence for violation of Section 3 (2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution. Since the shabu is the very corpus delicti of the crime charged, the Court finds Sinsuat's acquittal proper.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The assailed October 24, 2017 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08874 affirming the October 27, 2016 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 23, in Criminal Case No. 15-320027 that found accused-appellant Isaac Sinsuat y Tan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 11 (2), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Isaac Sinsuat y Tan is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless he is confined for any other lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Director General, Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. Furthermore, the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to report to this Court the action he has taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately. DETACa
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. CA rollo, pp. 26-42.
2.Rollo, pp. 2-11; penned by Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda (now a Member of the Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Ma. Luisa Quijano-Padilla.
3. CA rollo, pp. 44-53; penned by Presiding Judge Caroline Rivera-Colasito.
4. Records, pp. 1-2.
5.Id. at 1.
6.Id. at 29.
7.Id. at 6.
8.Id. at 11.
9.Id. at 12. See Chain of Custody Form.
10.Id. at 9.
11.Id. at 8.
12.Id. at 10.
13. TSN, March 8, 2016, p. 10.
14. TSN, September 20, 2016, pp. 4-5.
15.Id. at 5-6.
16.Id. at 9-10.
17. CA rollo, p. 53.
18. Records, pp. 125-127.
19.Id. at 126-127.
20. Records, p. 127.
21. CA rollo, p. 11.
22.Id. at 29-33.
23.Id. at 33-35.
24. Records, pp. 35-36.
25. CA rollo, pp. 37-38.
26.Id. at 40.
27.Id. at 65-67.
28.Id. at 67-70.
29.Rollo, p. 10.
30.Id. at 8.
31.Id. at 8-9.
32. CONSTITUTION, Art. III, Sec. 2.
33. CONSTITUTION, Art. III, Sec. 3 (2).
34. CONSTITUTION, Art. III, Sec. 3 (2).
35.Ambre v. People, 692 Phil. 681, 693 (2012) citing People v. Delos Reyes, 656 SCRA 417, 449 (2011).
36. RULES OF COURT, Rule 113, Sec. 5.
37.People v. Villareal, 706 Phil. 511, 517-518 (2013). Citation omitted.
38.Id. at 518.
39. 640 Phil. 669 (2010).
40.Id. at 676-677.
41. TSN, February 4, 2016, pp. 5-6.
42.Id. at 9-10.
43.Dominguez v. People, G.R. No. 235898, March 13, 2019.
44.Id.; See also People v. Villareal, 706 Phil. 511 (2013) and Comericiante v. People, 764 Phil. 627 (2015).
45.People v. Remigio, 700 Phil. 452, 464-465 (2012).
46. G.R. No. 242025, November 20, 2019.
47.People v. De Guzman, 630 Phil. 637, 649 (2010).
48. G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.
49.People v. Lim, G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.
50. TSN, February 4, 2016, pp. 3, 10-11.
51.People v. Sipin, G.R. No. 224290, June 11, 2018 citing People v. Gajo, G.R. No. 217026, January 22, 2018.