THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 239472. October 6, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.JOVELYN TAGACA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 6, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 239472 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, v. JOVELYN TAGACA, accused-appellant). — When persons are at risk of deprivation of life, liberty, and property, it becomes more evident why state agents must strictly comply with the chain of custody rule provided in Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. 1 These legal safeguards were instituted "to ensure that the evidence was not tampered with, substituted, or planted." 2 Although noncompliance with the chain of custody rule does not automatically render the evidence inadmissible, the prosecution may not invoke the saving clause in Section 21 at will. 3 Rather, "the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that noncompliance was justified and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item were preserved." 4 Failing which, this Court is duty-bound to acquit the accused.
This Court resolves the Appeal 5 from the Court of Appeals' Decision, 6 which affirmed the conviction 7 of Jovelyn Tagaca (Tagaca) for violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Tagaca was charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs in an Information 8 which reads:
That on about December 2, 2008 in the Municipality of Magsaysay, Province of Davao del Sur, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, without authority of law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver or give away to a poseur buyer four (4) sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride also known as "shabu," a dangerous drug, weighing 0.0633 [sic] to the damage and prejudice of the State.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 9
Upon arraignment, Tagaca pleaded not guilty to the charge. Trial on the merits ensued. 10
The prosecution presented the following witnesses: (1) Police Superintendent Liny Tuting Corpuz (P/Supt. Corpuz); (2) Intelligence Officer I John Romy Echeveria (IO1 Echeveria); 11 (3) IO1 Maria Felina Bacha (IO1 Bacha); (4) Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency Agent Gray Moring, Jr.; (5) Senior Police Officer IV Leonilo Manes (SPO4 Manes); and (6) Police Officer III Dante Bais (PO3 Bais). 12
According to the prosecution, IO1 Echeveria was at the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency in the afternoon of December 2, 2008 when he received a tip that a certain Jovelyn Tagaca alias "Tata" was selling shabu at Upper Kasuga, Magsaysay, Davao del Sur. IO1 Echeveria validated the information and organized a team to conduct a buy-bust operation. IO1 Echeveria was designated as the poseur buyer, while IO1 Bacha was the arresting officer. The team proceeded to the Magsaysay Police Station for coordination with the police. 13
On the same day, the team conducted the buy-bust operation. IO1 Echeveria and the confidential informant approached Tagaca's house. The confidential informant called out the name "Tata" and Tagaca came out. The confidential informant introduced IO1 Echeveria as an interested buyer of shabu. Tagaca asked how much shabu IO1 Echeveria intended to purchase, and the latter replied that he wanted P1,500.00 worth of shabu. Tagaca then asked for the money, prompting IO1 Echeveria to hand her the marked bills worth P1,500.00. In exchange, Tagaca gave IO1 Echeveria two sachets containing white crystalline substance. At this point, IO1 Echeveria removed his bull cap to signal to his colleagues that the transaction has been completed. This prompted the rest of the team to approach. IO1 Bacha arrested and frisked Tagaca, which yielded two more sachets. 14
Afterwards, they boarded a car and proceeded to the Magsaysay Police Station. Inside the car, while en route, the officers marked the seized items in Tagaca's presence. The arresting team explained that they did not mark the items in the place of arrest for security reasons. 15
The next day, the officers conducted the inventory of the seized items at the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory in Digos City. Tagaca, along with Kagawad Roger Mamingao (Kagawad Mamingao) and media representative Buenaventura Bastatas (Bastatas), witnessed the inventory. 16
IO1 Bacha submitted to SPO4 Manes the seized items, along with the request for laboratory examination. However, SPO4 Manes had to deliver the seized items to the Regional Crime Laboratory in Davao City because the Digos office allegedly did not have a weighing scale. PO3 Bais received the seized items, signed the letter request, and turned over the items to forensic chemist P/Supt. Corpuz for examination. The test yielded a positive result for shabu. 17
The defense presented the following witnesses: (1) Tagaca; (2) Tagaca's daughter Kristy Tagaca; and (3) Tagaca's father, Jose Tagaca. 18
According to the defense, the police came to Tagaca's store looking for her common-law spouse, Benedicto Maligsing, who was allegedly wanted for selling shabu. Together, they went to Tagaca's house. When the police saw that Maligsing was not there, they searched Tagaca's bag instead. They took her money amounting to P3,000.00. A police officer named Eliph took a sachet of shabu from his pocket and showed it to Tagaca. The police then arrested Tagaca and even had dinner at Santos Lechon Manok in Digos City before bringing Tagaca to the police station. 19
In an August 23, 2016 Decision, 20 the Regional Trial Court gave credence to the prosecution's evidence and found Tagaca guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF ALL THE ABOVE, the Court finds accused Jovelyn Tagaca guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act 9165 and is meted the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00.
SO ORDERED.21 (Emphasis in the original)
On appeal before the Court of Appeals, Tagaca argued that no buy-bust operation actually took place, and that the prosecution failed to prove the corpus delicti. 22
Meanwhile, the Office of the Solicitor General, representing the People of the Philippines, maintained that a valid buy-bust operation was conducted, and that the prosecution had established an unbroken chain of custody of the seized illegal drugs, thus assuring the integrity of the corpus delicti. 23
In its assailed February 21, 2018 Decision, 24 the Court of Appeals affirmed Tagaca's conviction. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the instant Appeal is DENIED. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court dated August 23, 2016 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 25
Hence, Tagaca filed a Notice of Appeal. 26 The Court of Appeals gave due course to the Notice of Appeal. 27
This Court allowed the parties to file supplemental briefs. 28 Both plaintiff-appellee People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, 29 and accused-appellant Tagaca 30 manifested that they will adopt their respective Briefs filed before the Court of Appeals.
The issue for this Court's resolution is whether or not accused-appellant Jovelyn Tagaca is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
This Court resolves to grant the appeal and acquit accused-appellant.
To obtain a conviction for the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish the following elements: "(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor." 31 What is most significant for the successful prosecution of this offense "is the proof that the transaction or sale transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti." 32 The "corpus delicti is the illicit drug seized from the accused." 33 In People v. Sagana, 34 this Court explained:
"[I]t is of paramount importance that the existence of the drug, the corpus delicti of the crime, be established beyond doubt." Its identity and integrity must be proven to have been safeguarded. Aside from proving the elements of the charges, "the fact that the substance illegally possessed and sold [was] the same substance offered in court as exhibit must likewise be established with the same degree of certitude as that needed to sustain a guilty verdict." The chain of custody carries out this purpose "as it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed." 35 (Citations omitted)
Establishing the corpus delicti requires strict compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Republic Act No. 9165. 36 Section 21 37 of Republic Act No. 9165 lists the steps that must be observed from the moment of seizure of drugs and drug paraphernalia up to their examination, and until their presentation before the court:
SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof[.]
The Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 provides a saving clause from strict compliance with the law:
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:
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: 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, further, that non-compliance with 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 of and custody over said items[.] (Emphasis supplied)
This Court has resolutely held that there must be strict compliance with the requirements in Section 21. This is important to prevent tampering and planting of evidence. 38
In this case, the prosecution failed to meet the exacting standards of Section 21 (1) of Republic Act No. 9165.
First, none of the required witnesses were present during the actual arrest and seizure. This Court explained in People v. Tomawis39 why are presentative from the media, an elected public official, and a representative of the Department of Justice must be present right at the conduct of arrest and seizure:
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 [Republic Act] 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 [Republic Act] 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." 40 (Citations omitted)
Second, the marking, inventory, and photographing of the alleged seized items were not performed immediately at the place of arrest and seizure, and in the presence of all the required witnesses. People v. Sultan41 discussed why the marking, inventory, and photographing must be done immediately at the place of arrest and seizure:
Section 21 mandates the conduct of inventory and taking of photographs "immediately after seizure and confiscation," which means that these must be done at the place of the arrest. Que explained:
What is critical in drug cases is not the bare conduct of inventory, marking, and photographing. Instead, it is the certainty that the items allegedly taken from the accused retain their integrity, even as they make their way from the accused to an officer effecting the seizure, to an investigating officer, to a forensic chemist, and ultimately, to courts where they are introduced as evidence[.]
Section 21 (1)'s requirements are designed to make the first and second links foolproof. Conducting the inventory and photographing immediately after seizure, exactly where the seizure was done, or at a location as practicably close to it, minimizes, if not eliminates, room for adulteration or the planting of evidence[.] 42 (Citation omitted)
In this case, the police officers marked the alleged seized drugs while already onboard the vehicle on the way to the police station.
Third, the marking, inventory, and photographing were not done in the presence of all the required witnesses. Only accused-appellant was present during the marking. Meanwhile, only accused-appellant, Kagawad Mamingao, and Bastatas were present during the inventory and taking of photographs. Worse, the inventory and photographing were conducted the next day.
Nonetheless, the law recognizes that strict compliance with its provisions may not always be possible. 43 For the exceptions to apply, it must be shown that noncompliance was justifiable and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. Not only must the prosecution explain why the requirements were not strictly complied with, it must also prove during trial the justifiable grounds for noncompliance. 44 Further, it must be shown that the law enforcers took specific safety measures to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items in view of the deviations made from the chain of custody requirements. 45
The marking, inventory, and photographing were not performed immediately at the place of arrest and seizure allegedly for security reasons. According to the prosecution, the buy-bust operation was conducted in a secluded area where there have been reports of New People's Army sightings. 46
While this Court has ruled that threats to the officers' safety may be invoked to justify noncompliance, 47 the threat here appears more imagined than real. The claim that there were security threats in the place of arrest was not substantiated. There was nothing to rely on other than the police officers' own self-serving allegation of feeling unsafe. 48
Even granting that the police officers were justified in transferring to another location, still, the arrest, seizure, marking, inventory, and photographing were not done in the presence of all the required witnesses. The prosecution's only explanation for the absences was that the witnesses were unavailable. 49
The prosecution must allege and demonstrate that earnest efforts were undertaken to secure the attendance of the required witnesses during the arrest, seizure, marking, inventory, and photographing of the seized items. 50People v. Lim51 explained:
Earnest effort to secure the attendance of the necessary witnesses must be proven. People v. Ramos requires:
It is well to note that the absence of these required witnesses does not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible. However, a justifiable reason for such failure or a showing of any genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses under Section 21 of [Republic Act] 9165 must be adduced. In People v. Umipang, the 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." Verily, mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses are unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance. These considerations arise from the fact that police officers are ordinarily given sufficient time — beginning from the moment they have received the information about the activities of the accused until the time of his arrest — to prepare for a buy-bust operation and consequently, make the necessary arrangements beforehand knowing full well that they would have to strictly comply with the set procedure prescribed in Section 21 of [Republic Act] 9165. As such, police officers are compelled not only to state reasons for their non-compliance, but must in fact, also convince the Court that they exerted earnest efforts to comply with the mandated procedure, and that under the given circumstances, their actions were reasonable. 52 (Citations omitted)
Ultimately, the prosecution was unable to provide any reason or explanation as to the lapses in the procedure to establish an unbroken chain of custody.
Further, "the prosecution also bears the burden of pleading 'specific safety measures' taken in view of noncompliance with Section 21." 53 No specific safety measures were alleged nor proven here. None of the witnesses even stated where and how the seized drugs were kept after seizure and prior to inventory.
As stated in People v. Musa, 54 "the essence of the chain of custody rule is to ensure that the dangerous drug presented in court as evidence against the accused is the same dangerous drug recovered from his or her possession." 55 The danger of tampering with or planting evidence is worse when the quantity of the allegedly seized drugs is minuscule. 56 Thus, the need for strict compliance is amplified.
Notably, here, the allegedly seized sachets only contained 0.0633 gram of shabu. This minuscule quantity of the confiscated illicit drugs heightens the importance of a more stringent conformity to Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. 57 In People v. Holgado: 58
While the min[u]scule amount of narcotics seized is by itself not a ground for acquittal, this circumstance underscores the need for more exacting compliance with Section 21. In [Mallillin] v. People; this court said that "the likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with respect to an exhibit is greatest when the exhibit is small and is one that has physical characteristics fungible in nature and similar in form to substances familiar to people in their daily lives.''
xxx xxx xxx
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 requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, in evaluating cases involving min[u]scule amounts of drugs. These can be readily planted and tampered. 59 (Citations omitted)
Unjustified lapses or noncompliance with Section 21 has been held to be tantamount to a substantial gap in the chain of custody. 60 Law enforcers' failure to comply with chain of custody requirements will translate to the prosecution's failure to establish the corpus delicti, and ultimately, failure to prove that the crime charged was indeed committed. 61
In convicting accused-appellant, the Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals allowed the prosecution to invoke the saving clause like a talisman to cure the buy-bust team's failures in the handling of the items seized. This should not be the case considering that a person may be deprived of their life, liberty, and property if convicted.
Finally, we reiterate our concern over the clogging of court dockets with prosecutions of minor drug users and retailers in contrast to the scarcity of prosecutions of drug cartel leaders. 62 Until the problem is addressed at the root, the symptoms will continue to plague the courts and the country: 63
It is lamentable that while our dockets are clogged with prosecutions under Republic Act No. 9165 involving small-time drug users and retailers, we are seriously short of prosecutions involving the proverbial "big fish." We are swamped with cases involving small fry who have been arrested for min[u]scule amounts. While they are certainly a bane to our society, small retailers are but low-lying fruits in an exceedingly vast network of drug cartels. Both law enforcers and prosecutors should realize that the more effective and efficient strategy is to focus resources more on the source and true leadership of these nefarious organizations. Otherwise, all these executive and judicial resources expended to attempt to convict an accused for 0.05 gram of shabu under doubtful custodial arrangements will hardly make a dent in the overall picture. It might in fact be distracting our law enforcers from their more challenging task: to uproot the causes of this drug menace. We stand ready to assess cases involving greater amounts of drugs and the leadership of these cartels. 64
WHEREFORE, the Court of Appeals' February 21, 2018 Decision in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01584-MIN, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Jovelyn Tagaca is ACQUITTED for the prosecution's failure to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. She is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless she is confined for any other lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Officer-in-Charge of the Davao Prison and Penal Farm for immediate implementation. The Officer-in-Charge is directed to report to this Court the action they have taken within five days from receipt of this Resolution. 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 shabu to the Dangerous Drugs Board for destruction in accordance with law.
Let entry of final judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED." (Dimaampao, J., designated additional Member per Special Order No. 2839)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. People v. Acub, G.R. No. 220456, June 10, 2019, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65228> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
2. Id.
3. Id.
4. Id.
5. Rollo, pp. 13-14.
6. Id. at 3-12. The February 21, 2018 Decision in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01584-MIN was penned by Associate Justice Oscar V. Badelles and concurred in by Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Tita Marilyn Payoyo-Villordon of the Twenty-First Division, Court of Appeals, Cagayan de Oro City.
7. CA rollo, pp. 40-53. The August 23, 2016 Decision was penned by Judge Loida S. Posadas-Kahulugan of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 21 of Bansalan, Davao del Sur.
8. Id. at 40.
9. Id.
10. Id.
11. Also spelled as "Echeverria" in some parts of the rollo.
12. CA rollo, pp. 40-41.
13. Rollo, p. 4.
14. Id.
15. Id.
16. Id. at 5.
17. Id.
18. CA rollo, p. 41.
19. Rollo, p. 5.
20. CA rollo, pp. 40-53.
21. Id. at 52-53.
22. Id. at 28.
23. Id. at 81.
24. Rollo, pp. 3-12.
25. Id. at 11.
26. Id. at 13-15.
27. Id. at 16.
28. Id. at 18.
29. Id., pp. 28-31.
30. Id., pp. 22-25.
31. People v. Yamata, 475 Phil. 376, 388 (2004) [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, Third Division].
32. People v. del Mundo, 539 Phil. 609, 617 (2006) [Per J. Tinga, Third Division].
33. People v. Sultan, G.R. No. 225210, August 7, 2019, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65518> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
34. People v. Sagana, 815 Phil. 356 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
35. Id. at 367-368.
36. People v. Sumilip, G.R. No. 223712, September 11, 2019, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65587> [Per J. Leonen, Special First Division].
37. Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 has been amended by Republic Act No. 10640 in 2014. However, the incidents in this case transpired in 2010 and as such, the law as originally formulated governs.
38. People v. Acub, G.R. No. 220456, June 10, 2019, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65228> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
39. 830 Phil. 385 (2018) [Per J. Caguioa, Second Division].
40. Id. at 408-409.
41. G.R. No. 225210, August 7, 2019, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65518> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
42. Id.
43. People v. Acub, G.R. No. 220456, June 10, 2019, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65228> [Per. J. Leonen, Third Division].
44. Id.
45. People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 238339, August 7, 2019, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65610> [Per. J. Leonen, Third Division] citing People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214, 234 (2008) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
46. Rollo, p. 4.
47. People v. Plaza, G.R. No. 235467, August 20, 2018, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64589> [Per J. Gesmundo, Third Division].
48. CA rollo, p. 43.
49. Rollo, p. 5.
50. People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 238339, August 7, 2019, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65610> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
51. G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64400> [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].
52. Id.
53. Santos v. People, G.R. No. 203795 (Notice), January 25, 2021 [Third Division], citing People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 238339, August 7, 2019, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65610> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
54. 698 Phil. 204 (2012) [Per J. Velasco, Jr., Third Division].
55. Id. at 219, citing People v. Denoman, 612 Phil. 1165 (2009) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
56. People v. Acub, G.R. No. 220456, June 10, 2019, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65228> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
57. People v. Sagana, 815 Phil. 356 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
58. 741 Phil. 78 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
59. Id. at 99-100.
60. Id. at 93.
61. People v. Saragena, 817 Phil. 117, 131 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
62. People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
63. Id. at 100.
64. Id.