FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 250144. July 28, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. EDNARD SOBRIO y DAMAYO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 28, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 250144 (People of the Philippines v. Ednard Sobrio y Damayo).
This is an Appeal 1 from the July 25, 2019 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02750. The CA affirmed in toto the November 24, 2017 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court of Palompon, Leyte, Branch 17 (RTC), which found Ednard Sobrio y Damayo (appellant) guilty of violating Sections 5 4 and 11, 5 Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," as amended by R.A. No. 10640. 6
Antecedents
Appellant was charged with violation of Secs. 5 and 11, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 in two separate Informations, the accusatory portions of which read:
Criminal Case No. R-PAL-15-2028-CR — for violation of Sec. 11
That on or about the 25th day of May 2015, at about 12:35 o'clock in the morning, at Brgy. Poblacion, Tabango, Leyte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, [have] in his possession two (2) sachets of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) with a total weight of 0.13 [gram] without permit from lawful authorities.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 7
Criminal Case No. R-PAL-15-2029-CR — for violation of Sec. 5
That on or about the 25th day of May 2015, at about 12:35 o'clock in the morning, at Brgy. Poblacion, Tabango, Leyte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously sell, dispense, or deliver one (1) sachet of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) with a total weight of 0.05 [gram].
CONTRARY TO LAW. 8
During arraignment, appellant pleaded "not guilty" to the charges against him. Trial ensued thereafter.
Version of the Prosecution
On May 24, 2015, at around 10:00 p.m., Police Senior Inspector Antero Mesias, Jr. (PSI Mesias), Chief of Police of the Philippine National Police-Tabango station (PNP-Tabango) received a report from a confidential informant (informant) regarding appellant's illegal sale of shabu in Barangay Poblacion, Tabango. The PNP-Tabango immediately requested the assistance of the Regional Anti-Illegal Drug Special Operation Task Group (RAIDSOTG), headed by then Police Inspector Jose D. Dolina, Jr. (PInsp. Dolina). Acting thereon, PInsp. Dolina assigned several police officers to augment the personnel of the PNP-Tabango in the conduct of the buy-bust operation. 9
Thereafter, PSI Mesias conducted a briefing wherein a four-man buy-bust team was formed, three from the RAIDSOTG and one from the PNP-Tabango in the person of Police Officer I Jobelle Kervin Ordinario (PO1 Ordinario). Police Officer III Joel C. Gososo (PO3 Gososo) was designated as the poseur-buyer and evidence custodian, while PO1 Ordinario was assigned as the apprehending officer. 10
At around 12:00 midnight of May 25, 2015, the buy-bust team proceeded to Brgy. Poblacion. Upon arriving at the bridge, PO3 Gososo was met by the informant while PO1 Ordinario positioned himself about five (5) meters away from PO3 Gososo. A few minutes later, appellant arrived on foot and alone. The informant then introduced PO3 Gososo to appellant as the interested buyer of P500.00 worth of shabu. Without saying a word, appellant got a small sachet containing a white crystalline substance from his right pocket and handed it to PO3 Gososo. In turn, PO3 Gososo gave appellant the marked P500.00-bill. To signify that the transaction had been consummated, PO3 Gososo raised his right hand to signal the buy-bust team. PO1 Ordinario then rushed towards PO3 Gososo and appellant, and immediately apprehended the latter. After the arrest, PO1 Ordinario frisked appellant and recovered from him two (2) more sachets of shabu. PO1 Ordinario immediately handed the plastic sachets to PO3 Gososo, the evidence custodian. 11
Appellant, along with the seized items, was brought to the PNP-Tabango where PO3 Gososo conducted the inventory in the presence of appellant and two (2) officials of Brgy. Poblacion, Artemio Ocubillo and Jerome Pastor, who both signed the Receipt of the Property Seized/Certificate of Inventory. PO3 Gososo marked the item he bought from the appellant with the latter's initials "ES-A," and the other two (2) sachets found in appellant's possession with "ES-B1" and "ES-B2." Thereafter, PO3 Gososo placed all the seized items in a container and sealed it. Photographs were likewise taken for documentation purposes. 12 After the inventory, PO3 Gososo prepared the Request for Laboratory Examination and submitted it, together with the seized items, to the PNP Crime Laboratory for chemical analysis. 13
Forensic Chemist Police Senior Inspector Robbie Charles P. Villagen (PSI Villagen) received the specimens from PO3 Gososo. Thereafter, he conducted a qualitative and quantitative examination of the seized items. The examination yielded positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. PSI Villagen's findings and conclusions were detailed in Chemistry Report No. D-375-2015 (RCLO8). 14
PSI Villagen then placed all the transparent plastic sachets containing the shabu inside a brown envelope, which he sealed with masking tape. He thereafter placed a marking on the envelope, and turned it over to the evidence custodian, Police Officer III Lea Nartea (PO3 Nartea). Later, PSI Villagen retrieved the specimens and brought and identified them in court. 15
Version of the Defense
Appellant riposted that while on his way home, on May 25, 2015, at around 11:00 p.m. seven (7) persons approached him as he was parking his trisikad to inquire of the whereabouts of a certain Benjie Arcabal (Benjie). Appellant told them that he was not aware of Benjie's whereabouts. Suddenly, the men arrested appellant. Appellant confronted the arresting persons and resisted out of fear that he might get mauled. Appellant was then brought towards the dark side of the house of his neighbor May Pelayo and was made to sit down and wait for a certain Allan Calcita (Calcita). Upon his arrival, Calcita inquired if Benjie was around, but the group replied that they only had appellant. Appellant then heard Calcita instructing the group of men to plant drugs on him. Afterwards, appellant was brought to the municipal hall. 16
At the Municipal Hall of Tabango, PSI Mesias arrived and inquired about Benjie. Upon knowing that Benjie was not around, PSI Mesias instructed PO3 Gososo to plant a sachet of shabu on appellant. As instructed, PO3 Gososo pulled out from his pocket a sachet and placed it inside appellant's pocket. PSI Mesias then pulled out a P500.00-bill and told appellant that "you have already a sale."17 Appellant tried to complain but PSI Mesias threatened to plant on him a bag of marijuana if he did not disclose the truth as to the whereabouts of Benjie. Appellant was then brought to the PNP-Tabango where he was instructed to sit down at the side of the table where he saw the letters ABC thereon. 18
The RTC Decision
In its November 24, 2017 Decision, 19 the RTC found appellant guilty of violating Secs. 5 and 11, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165. It held that all the elements of the crimes as charged were sufficiently established. The evidence of the prosecution clearly showed that the sale of the dangerous drugs actually took place and that the shabu, subject of the charge, was bought from appellant and the same shabu was later identified in court. The delivery of the shabu to the poseur-buyer, PO3 Gososo, and appellant's receipt of the P500.00 marked money, successfully consummated the buy-bust transaction. 20 Also, after his arrest, appellant was frisked and two (2) more sachets were found in his possession, which subsequently yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. 21
The subsequent whereabouts of the dangerous drugs from the time it was confiscated and tested in the crime laboratory until it was offered in evidence in court constituted compliance with the chain of custody rule. The identity and integrity of the seized drugs were preserved. 22
The dispositive portion of the RTC decision reads:
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises, judgments are hereby rendered as follows:
(1) For Criminal Case No. R-PAL-15-2028-CR which involves violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, this Court finds the accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of TWELVE YEARS (12) and ONE (1) DAY to FIFTEEN (15) YEARS and to pay the fine of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P300,000.00).
(2) For Criminal Case No. R-PAL-15-2029-CR which involves violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, this Court finds the accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay the fine of ONE MILLION PESOS (P1,000,000.00) without eligibility for parole pursuant to Section 2 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
xxx xxx xxx
SO ORDERED.23
The CA Decision
In its July 25, 2019 Decision, 24 the CA affirmed in toto the ruling of the RTC. The CA held that the buy-bust team had substantially complied with the requirements of the law on marking, photography, and inventory of the seized dangerous drugs. Moreover, the prosecution was able to establish the fact that the integrity of the seized drugs was preserved. The totality of the prosecution's evidence shows the continuous whereabouts of the dangerous drug from the time it was confiscated and tested in the crime laboratory until it was offered in evidence in court. The dispositive portion of the CA decision, reads:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DENIED. The Decision of the RTC, Branch 17, Palompon, Leyte, dated November 24, 2017, in Criminal Case Nos. R-PAL-15-2028-CR and R-PAL-15-2029-CR, is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED. 25
Hence, the instant appeal.
Assignment of Errors
Appellant raises the following errors in support of his appeal, viz.:
I.
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN RELYING ON THE DOUBTFUL SPECIMEN PRESENTED. 26
II.
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN RELYING ON PIECES OF SPECIMEN PRESENTED NOTWITHSTANDING THE BROKEN LINK IN THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY. 27
III.
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN EQUATING PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY IN THE PERFORMANCE OF PUBLIC DUTIES TO PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. 28
On January 20, 2020, this Court issued a Resolution, 29 which notified the parties that they may file their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desired. In its June 16, 2020 Manifestation (In Lieu of Supplemental Brief), 30 the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) manifested that it would no longer file a supplemental brief and would adopt the arguments in its appellee's brief since no new issue was raised in the automatic review. In his August 27, 2020 Manifestation (In Lieu of a Supplemental Brief), 31 appellant averred that he would no longer file a supplemental brief since he had sufficiently refuted all the arguments raised in his appellant's brief.
In his Appellant's Brief 32 filed before the CA, appellant argues that there was failure to observe the procedure provided for under Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165. 33 The integrity and evidentiary value of the specimens had not been preserved. 34 Appellant maintains that the apprehending officers did not exert any genuine and sufficient effort to comply with the mandate of Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165. 35 Finally, appellant argues that there were breaks in every link in the chain of custody. 36
On the other hand, the OSG urges this Court to affirm appellant's conviction for violation of Secs. 5 and 11, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165. The OSG maintains that the prosecution had duly established the elements of the offenses as charged. 37 There was an unbroken chain of custody from PO3 Del Mundo's confiscation of the plastic sachet from appellant, to the markings placed thereon after appellant's arrest, to the turnover of the seized items to the police investigator, and to the request and turnover of the same for laboratory examination which yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. 38 Consequently, the prosecution was able to establish that the integrity and identity of the seized drugs had been sufficiently preserved.
The Court's Ruling
The Court grants the appeal.
It is a general principle of law that factual findings of the trial court are not disturbed on appeal unless the court a quo is perceived to have overlooked, misunderstood or misinterpreted certain facts or circumstances of weight which, if properly considered, would have materially affected the outcome of the case. In the case at bench, the Court finds that certain facts of substance have been overlooked which, if only addressed and appreciated, would have altered the outcome of the case. 39
To secure conviction for Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, the prosecution must establish the following essential elements: (a) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for the thing. What is material in prosecutions for illegal sale of shabu is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence. 40 On the other hand, under Sec. 11, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, the elements of the offense of illegal possession of dangerous drugs are: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. 41
To emphasize, for both illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, it is essential that the prosecution establish the identity of the seized dangerous drugs in a way that its integrity has been well preserved from the time of seizure or confiscation from the accused until the time of presentation as evidence in court. 42 The chain of custody requirement is necessary to ensure that doubts regarding the identity of the evidence are removed through the monitoring and tracking of the movements of the seized drugs from the accused, to the police, to the forensic chemist, and finally to the court. 43 While a perfect chain of custody is almost always impossible to achieve, an unbroken chain becomes indispensable and essential in the prosecution of drug cases owing to its susceptibility to alteration, tampering, contamination and even substitution and exchange. 44
Thus, the prosecution has the duty to prove every link in the chain, from the moment the dangerous drug was seized from the appellant until the time it is offered in court as evidence. The showing of the continuous chain of custody fulfills the function of ensuring that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the corpus delicti are removed.
In order to alleviate fears that the identity and integrity of the drugs seized had been compromised, it is essential that the prosecution establish compliance with the chain of custody rule as outlined under Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165. The said provision provides the procedure that the apprehending officers must observe in the conduct of drug-related operations. Particularly, there must be evidence establishing: (a) the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; (b) the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (c) the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (d) the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drugs seized from the forensic chemist to the court. 45
In the case at bar, there were substantial gaps in the chain of custody of the articles allegedly seized from appellant.
First, the confiscated items were not immediately marked upon confiscation. The marking of the seized item, the first link in the chain of custody, is crucial in proving an unbroken chain of custody as it is the starting point in the custodial link that succeeding handlers of the evidence will use as a reference point. 46
Quilet v. People47 emphasized the importance of marking the seized items promptly and properly. The Court explained —
"Marking" means the placing by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials and signature on the items seized. Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link; hence, it is vital that the seized contraband be immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. Marking of the seized item must not only be prompt but proper as well, since marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings, obviating switching, "planting," or contamination of evidence. 48
In this case, PO3 Gososo testified that the marking of the contraband was done at the police station in Poblacion, Tabango, instead of the place of seizure or arrest. No explanation was offered by the prosecution regarding this procedural misstep which is deemed fatal to the cause of the prosecution since this is the first link in the chain of custody. Moreover, the prosecution failed to identify the measures that were taken by the apprehending officers, especially PO3 Gososo, to ensure the integrity of the seized items while they were in transit.
The compliance with the requirement of immediate marking of the seized items should be even more exacting in this case considering that there were three (3) sachets of shabu purportedly confiscated from appellant. To recall, the first sachet was the subject of the sale, and the other two were purportedly seized from appellant after frisking him. Based on the testimony of PO3 Gososo, he had custody of the first sachet that was subject of the sale. The other two (2) sachets, which were initially recovered by POI Ordinario after frisking appellant, were later turned over to PO3 Gososo at the place of the arrest. Therefore, it was PO3 Gososo who had custody of the three sachets of shabu from the place of seizure until it was brought to, marked, and inventoried at the police station.
PO3 Gososo attempted to allay any fears of switching when he testified and assured the trial court that he could distinguish which among the three sachets of shabu was the subject of the sale, and which were seized from appellant's possession. He claimed that the two sachets subject of the charge of illegal possession were bigger compared to the first sachet which was the subject of the sale. The Court, however, is not persuaded.
The fact that the two sachets subject of the charge for illegal possession were bigger in size compared to the first seized item (the subject of the sale), is not enough assurance that all of them had been secured and their integrity preserved. It should be stressed that all three sachets were not immediately marked after confiscation, but were brought to the PNP-Tabango station for marking and inventory. The testimony of PO3 Gososo was lacking as to how he ensured that the seized items were not exchanged, substituted or tampered with while in his custody and during transit from the place of arrest until he reached the PNP-Tabango station. The prosecution should be reminded that it is within its burden to establish that measures are undertaken during transit from the place of arrest to the police station, to ensure the integrity and credibility of the confiscated contraband, therefore eliminating any possibility of tampering or substitution.
Furthermore, it is settled that the failure of the authorities to immediately mark the seized drugs raises reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti and suffices to rebut the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. Such presumption, too, cannot arise in cases where the questioned official acts are patently irregular. 49
Indeed, the lower courts erred in applying the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties in the prosecution's favor, given the unexplained procedural lapse committed by the police in handling and safe-keeping of the seized drugs before the marking and inventory.
Second, the apprehending officers likewise failed to comply with the three (3) witnesses mandated by law to be present during the inventory and taking of photographs.
To ensure compliance with the chain of custody rule, Sec. 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165 requires the apprehending team, after seizure and confiscation, to immediately conduct a physical inventory; and photograph the same in the presence of (1) the accused or the persons from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel; (2) a representative from the media and (3) the DOJ; and (4) any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. 50
R.A. No. 10640, 51 which amended Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and became effective on August 7, 2014, requires only three witnesses to be present during the inventory and taking of photographs of the seized evidence, namely: (a) the accused or the persons from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, (b) an elected public official, and (c) a representative of the National Prosecution Service (NPS) or the media. 52 Here, since the offenses charged were committed on May 25, 2015, the provisions of R.A. No. 10640 shall apply.
Based on the records, there was no representative from the NPS or the media during the inventory of the seized items. The inventory was witnessed only by the appellant and two (2) barangay officials of Poblacion, Tabango. Under the law, the presence of the appellant, a representative from the media or NPS, and any elected public official is mandatory because the law requires them to sign the copies of the inventory and to be given a copy thereof. 53
While Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, provides for a saving clause in case of noncompliance with the procedure laid therein, the same cannot be applied in favor of the prosecution. The saving clause applies only (1) where the prosecution recognized the procedural lapses, and thereafter explained the cited justifiable grounds, and (2) when the prosecution established that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized had been preserved. 54 Further, in People v. Balubal,55 this Court held that the prosecution must show that earnest efforts were employed in contacting the representatives enumerated under the law for "a sheer statement that representatives were unavailable — without so much as an explanation on whether serious attempts were employed to look for other representatives, given the circumstances — is to be regarded as a flimsy excuse." 56
Moreover, police officers are ordinarily given sufficient time from the moment they receive the information about the activities of the accused until the time of his arrest — to prepare for a buy-bust operation. They have to convince the Court that they exerted earnest efforts to comply with the mandated procedure and that under the circumstances, their actions were reasonable. 57
Here, the prosecution failed to give any justifiable ground or an explanation for the failure to secure the presence of a representative of the NPS or the media to witness the inventory and photographing of the seized items. Emphasis must be given on the fact that the buy-bust operation was arranged and scheduled in advance when the police officers formed an apprehending team, and even coordinated with the RAIDSOTG to assist them in the conduct of the buy-bust operation. Hence, the police officers had sufficient opportunity to secure the mandatory witnesses for the inventory and photographing of the seized drugs, but still failed to do so.
Lastly, the prosecution also failed to establish the fourth link in the chain of custody. The fourth link refers to the turnover and submission of the dangerous drug from the forensic chemist to the court. In drug-related cases, it is of paramount necessity that the forensic chemist testifies on the details pertaining to the handling and analysis of the dangerous drug submitted for examination, i.e., when and from whom the dangerous drug was received; what identifying labels or other things accompanied it; description of the specimen; and the container it was in. Further, the forensic chemist must also identify the name and method of analysis used in determining the chemical composition of the subject specimen. 58
While it was established that after the conduct of the chemical analysis, PSI Villagen sealed the specimens in a brown envelope and delivered the same to PO3 Nartea, the evidence custodian, no one testified on how the specimen was handled thereafter. PO3 Nartea did not testify nor was there any testimony or stipulation that could establish the condition in which the specimens were received and how they were handled by PO3 Nartea to ensure their integrity and evidentiary value. This gap in the chain of custody casts serious doubts on the handling of the confiscated shabu as it is not clear whether these were the same items allegedly seized from appellant, and later presented in court.
It is well-settled that the procedure in Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is a matter of substantive law, and cannot be brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality or, worse, ignored as an impediment to the conviction of illegal drug suspects. The significant lapses committed, as well as the officers' failure to explain their noncompliance with the directives of the law, cast doubt on the integrity of the corpus delicti. 59
In sum, the prosecution failed to provide justifiable grounds for the apprehending team's noncompliance with the requirements laid down in Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165. Therefore, appellant must be acquitted.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The July 25, 2019 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02750 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE for failure of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of appellant Ednard Sobrio y Damayo. He is hereby ACQUITTED of the crimes charged against him and ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from custody, unless he is being held for some other lawful cause.
The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is ORDERED to IMPLEMENT this Resolution and to INFORM this Court of the date of the actual release from confinement of Ednard Sobrio y Damayo within five (5) days from receipt hereof.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
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. CA rollo, pp. 99-101.
2.Id. at 84-98; penned by Associate Justice Edward B. Contreras with Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and Dorothy P. Montejo-Gonzaga, concurring.
3.Id. at 35-44.
4. 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. x x x
5. 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. x x x
6. An Act to Further Strengthen the Anti-Drug Campaign of the Government, Amending for the Purpose Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.''
7. CA rollo, p. 35.
8.Id.
9.Id. at 85-86.
10.Id.
11.Id. at 86.
12.Id.
13.Id. at 87.
14.Id.
15.Id.
16.Id.
17.Id.
18.Id. at 87-88.
19.Id. at 35-44.
20.Id. at 40-41.
21.Id. at 42.
22.Id.
23.Id. at 43.
24.Id. at 84-98.
25.Id. at 98.
26.Id. at 22.
27.Id. at 28.
28.Id. at 30.
29.Rollo, pp. 26-27.
30.Id. at 33-34.
31.Id. at 41-43.
32. CA rollo, pp. 12-34.
33.Id. at 35.
34.Id. at 22-23.
35.Id. at 39.
36.Id. at 28.
37.Id. at 65.
38.Id. at 73-75.
39.People v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 238516, February 27, 2019.
40.People v. Alvarado, 830 Phil. 785, 797 (2018).
41.People v. Rodriguez, supra note 39.
42.Id.
43.Id.
44.Id.
45.People v. Malabanan, G.R. No. 241950, April 10, 2019.
46.People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 221458, September 5, 2018.
47. G.R. No. 242118, September 2, 2020.
48.Id.
49.People v. Suarez, 832 Phil. 779, 793-794 (2018).
50.People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 228 (2015).
51.Supra note 6.
52.People v. Bangcola, G.R. No. 237802, March 18, 2019.
53.Tumabini v. People, G.R. No. 224495, February 19, 2020.
54.Id.
55. G.R. No. 234033, July 30, 2018, 875 SCRA 1.
56.Id. at 20; citing People v. Umipang, 686 Phil. 1024, 1053 (2012).
57.People v. Labadan, G.R. No. 237769, March 11, 2019.
58.People v. Omamos, G.R. No. 223036, July 10, 2019.
59.People v. Balubal, supra note 55, at 20.