People v. Tolentino

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 248524. November 15, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LOURJEN1TOLENTINO, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated15 November 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 248524 (People of the Philippines v. Lourjen Tolentino). — On appeal 2 is the May 8, 2019 Decision 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02517 affirming the June 22, 2016 Judgment 4 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 34, Dumaguete City in Criminal Case Nos. 2011-20381 and 2011-20282, that found accused-appellant Lourjen Tolentino (Lourjen) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, 5 otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."

The Factual Antecedents:

This case arose from two separate Informations 6 charging Lourjen with Illegal Possession and Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Sections 11 and 5, respectively, of RA 9165, thus:

Criminal Case No. 2011-20381

That on or about the 24th day of February, 2011, in the City of Dumaguete, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, not being then authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously keep and possess one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet of white crystalline substance containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, weighing 0.01 gram, a dangerous drug.

Contrary to Sec. 11, Art. II of R.A. 9165. 7

Criminal Case No. 2011-20382

That on or about the 24th day of February, 2011, in the City of Dumaguete, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, not being then authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to a police poseur buyer one (1) heat sealed transparent plastic sachet of white crystalline substance containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, locally known as shabu, weighing 0.02 gram, a dangerous drug.

Contrary to Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. 9165. 8

During arraignment, Lourjen entered pleas of not guilty to both offenses. 9 The RTC consolidated the cases and joint proceedings ensued. 10

Version of the prosecution:

In the afternoon of February 24, 2011, a confidential informant (CI) went to the Dumaguete Police Station and reported the illegal drug activities in Zone 2, Barangay Looc, Dumaguete City. 11 The police officers thus conducted a briefing, where a buy-bust operation against Lourjen was planned. 12 Senior Police Officer (SPO) 1 Harvey Cuasito (SPO1 Cuasito) was designated as poseur-buyer, while Police Officer (PO) 1 Roderick Maquinta (PO1 Maquinta) was designated as back-up. 13 Other police officers were also designated as backup and security. A P500.00 bill was also provided as buy-bust money. 14 PO3 Liberato Faelogo coordinated the operation with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). 15 The coordination was received by Intelligence Officer 1 Julieta Amatong, who forwarded it to the PDEA regional office. The regional office thus issued a coordination control number for the operation. 16

Thereafter, SPO1 Cuasito and PO1 Maquinta proceeded to the target area followed by the rest of the team. 17 Upon arrival, SPO1 Cuasito and PO1 Maquinta met with the CI and proceeded to the location of Lourjen. 18 SPO1 Cuasito and the CI approached Lourjen, while PO1 Maquinta positioned himself a few meters away. 19 SPO1 Cuasito then asked Loujen if they can buy shabu. Lourjen asked if they had money. 20 Thus, SPO1 Cuasito handed over the marked money, while Lourjen handed a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. 21 After confirming that the substance was indeed shabu, SPO1 Cuasito proceeded to arrest Lourjen. 22 Upon seeing this, PO1 Maquinta made a call to the other back-up officers to signal the consummation of the transaction. PO1 Maquinta then rushed to assist SPO1 Cuasito. 23 The back-up officers also rushed to the scene and secured the area. 24

Meanwhile, after the arrest, SPO1 Cuasito conducted a body search on Lourjen, that yielded another heat-sealed plastic sachet containing shabu. 25

While still in the area, SPO1 Cuasito marked the seized items with "LT-BB-2/24/11" and "LT-P-2/24/11,'' pertaining to the objects of sale and possession, respectively. 26 Subsequently, an inventory was made in the presence of Department of Justice (DOJ) representative Ramon Astillero, media representative Neil Rio, and barangay councilor Ricardo Sales. 27 PO1 Maquinta took photographs during the course of the inventory. 28 Thereafter, they went back to the police station.

After preparing the requests for laboratory examination and drug test, SPO1 Cuasito brought Lourjen and the seized items to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory. 29 Police Chief Inspector Josephine Llena (PCI Llena) conducted the examination. The seized items tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrocholoride, a dangerous drug. 30 Lourjen's urine sample likewise tested positive for the presence of the drug. 31 PCI Llena then sealed the seized items in a specimen envelop, and placed them in the evidence room for safekeeping. 32 She eventually surrendered the seized items to a court employee for trial purposes. 33

Version of the accused:

Lourjen denied the accusations against him and claimed that he was framed up. At around 12:00 noon of February 24, 2011, he was at the house of his uncle, Gilbert Bolo (Bolo), to celebrate the birthday of his uncle's wife. 34 Bolo asked Lourjen to buy ice at a nearby store. 35 Lourjen stated that while on his way to the store, he was wrestled by two individuals who handcuffed him 36 and searched his person but nothing was recovered. 37 Thereafter, the two individuals brought Lourjen to Ang Barko Hotel, where he was made to enter one of the rooms and wait for about 30 minutes. 38 Then he was brought back to the place where he was wrestled. Lourjen was again frisked and this time they recovered marked money from Lourjen. 39 Lourjen claimed that his neighbor allegedly saw the informant placing the marked money inside his right pocket. 40 During inventory, SPO1 Cuasito took out two sachets. Lourjen claimed that the sachets did not belong to him and that they came from SPO1 Cuasito. 41 The barangay councilor arrived and signed the inventory sheet. 42 Thereafter, they went to the police station. 43

The defense also presented Lourjen's uncle, Bolo, Barangay Looc resident Steven Clyde Rendoque (Rendoque), and Lourjen's sister Riza Tolentino (Riza). Bolo narrated that while Lourjen was on his way to buy ice, 44 three individuals accosted Lourjen, searched his person, and brought him to Ang Barko Hotel. 45 Bolo, together with other neighbors, followed them to the hotel. After some time, Lourjen and the three individuals emerged from the hotel and went back to the place where Lourjen was wrestled. 46 Bolo claimed that Rendoque saw the arresting officer place a P500.00 bill and shabu inside Lourjen's pocket. 47 Rendoque, however, did not particularly state that he saw the police officer place the marked money and shabu inside Lourjen's pocket. 48 Meanwhile, Riza testified that she took pictures of the area where Lourjen was arrested. 49

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:

In its June 22, 2016 Decision, 50 the RTC convicted Lourjen of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs. The trial court gave credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly that of SPO1 Cuasito as corroborated by PO1 Maquinta. 51 The RTC did not give weight to the testimonies of the defense. 52 As to the chain of custody, the trial court ruled that the police officers were able to comply with the law. 53 The relevant portions of the fallo read:

WHEREFORE, in Criminal Case No. 2011-20381, accused LOURJEN TOLENTINO is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of illegal possession of 0.01 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, locally known as "shabu", in violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and the court hereby imposes upon him the indeterminate penalty of TWELVE (12) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY, as minimum, to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS, as maximum term, and to pay a fine of FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P400,000.00).

In Criminal Case No. 2011-20382, accused LOURJEN TOLENTINO is likewise found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of illegal selling and delivering of 0.02 gram of shabu, a dangerous drug, in violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165[,] and the court hereby imposes upon him the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00).

xxx xxx xxx

SO ORDERED. 54

Aggrieved, Lourjen appealed 55 to the CA. In his appellant's brief, 56 Lourjen argued that the prosecution failed to prove the conduct of the buy-bust operation. He pointed out that: (a) the police officers failed to comply with the 2010 PNP Manual on Anti-Illegal Drugs Operation and Investigation when they did not conduct any prior surveillance or verification; (b) the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses with regard to when Lourjen was identified as target were contradictory; (c) the marked money was not recorded in the police blotter; and, (d) there was lack of negotiation between the poseur-buyer and Lourjen during the buy-bust because the latter immediately asked the former if he has money without having any idea how much the buyer had intended to buy. 57 Thus, as there was no buy-bust operation to speak of, Lourjen's warrantless arrest was unlawful. 58 Lourjen argued that the warrantless body search subsequently conducted was also unlawful. 59

Lourjen asserted that the prosecution failed to prove an unbroken chain of custody: (a) there was no showing that SPO1 Cuasito remained in custody of the seized items from the place of arrest until they reached the police station as well as the precautionary measures he has taken while in custody thereof; (b) there was no showing that he turned over the seized items to an investigating officer; and, (c) the court employee who received the seized items from PCI Llena was not presented during the trial. 60

In its appellee's brief, 61 the prosecution countered that all the elements of both offenses have been proven: the testimonies show that the sale was consummated, and Lourjen was in possession of a dangerous drug. 62 The prosecution also insisted that the police officers complied with the chain of custody of the seized items. 63

Ruling of the Court of Appeals:

In its May 8, 2019 Decision, 64 the CA affirmed the RTC Decision in its entirety. The elements of the offenses charged were present. 65 The appellate court ruled that prior surveillance is not necessary for the validity of a buy-bust operation, especially if the police officers are accompanied by an informant. 66 Further, pre-recording the marked money in the police blotter is not an essential element of either crime. 67 As to the lack of negotiation between buyer and seller, the CA held that the police officers, being engaged in a buy-bust operation, already had foreknowledge of the transaction, thus, this circumstance is not fatal. 68 Even granting that there was no valid buy-bust operation, Lourjen failed to question the legality of his arrest before his arraignment. 69 Lastly, the appellate court held that the rules on chain of custody have been observed; the items seized during the operation were the very same items examined in the laboratory and eventually presented in the trial. 70

Still aggrieved, Lourjen further elevated the case to this Court. 71 Both parties opted to no longer file supplemental briefs. 72

Issue

The issue is whether accused Lourjen is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs.

Our Ruling

There is no merit in the appeal. The Court affirms Lourjen's conviction for both offenses.

The elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5 of RA 9165 are as follows: (a) the identity 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 therefor. 73 In a buy-bust operation, the receipt by the poseur-buyer of the dangerous drug and the corresponding receipt by the seller of the marked money consummate the Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs.74 What matters is the proof that the sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited drug, the corpus delicti, as evidence. 75

On the other hand, the elements of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 are as follows: (a) the accused was in possession of an item or object identified as a prohibited drug; (b) the possession was not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. 76

Here, the Court affirms that the elements of both offenses are present. The evidence presented clearly shows that the sale was consummated and that Lourjen was in possession of a dangerous drug without authority of law.

The identities of the buyer and the seller, SPO1 Cuasito and Lourjen, respectively, were both established by the prosecution. The object was the plastic sachet of shabu weighing 0.02 gram, and the consideration was the marked P500.00 bill. Both were presented and identified in open court. Likewise, the exchange, which consummated the illegal sale, was sufficiently established by the prosecution through the categorical and positive testimonies of SPO1 Cuasito and PO1 Maquinta. SPO1 Cuasito narrated that he handed the marked money to Lourjen, while the latter handed the shabu from his pocket. 77 PO1 Maquinta added that, as the designated back up situated a few meters from SPO1 Cuasito, he saw the exchange — SPO1 Cuasito gave the marked money to Lourjen, while the latter gave a small plastic sachet to the former. 78

Further, another plastic sachet weighing 0.01 gram was recovered from Lourjen pursuant to the body search after the lawful arrest, which exhibited that he was clearly in possession of a dangerous drug. The prosecution also showed that Lourjen was not in any way authorized by law to possess dangerous drugs.

Thus, there is no doubt that Lourjen sold and was in possession of dangerous drugs. There is no reason for this Court to not appreciate the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and differ from the findings of the RTC as affirmed by the CA. After all, it is settled that the findings of the trial court with respect to the credibility of testimonies are accorded great weight and respect due to their unique position of being able to observe the witnesses' demeanor and behavior while testifying. 79 This rule even finds a more stringent application when affirmed by the CA, 80 as in the instant case.

Moreover, Lourjen's contentions do not cast doubt on the existence of a valid buy-bust operation against him.

On the contention that the police officers did not conduct surveillance or case build-up prior to the operation, the Court has held that the lack of prior surveillance does not affect the validity of an entrapment operation. 81 It is not necessary especially if the police authorities are accompanied by an informant during the operation. 82 Here, it is clear that the buy-bust team was accompanied by the CI during the operation, who even introduced SPO1 Cuasito to Lourjen.

Further, the contention that the marked money was not pre-recorded in the police blotter fails. Law and jurisprudence do not require the pre-recording of the marked money. 83 More so, it is not an element of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs. 84 In any event, the marked money was nonetheless identified by SPO1 Cuasito in open court. 85

Lastly, the Court is not convinced with the contention that the lack of negotiation between SPO1 Cuasito and Lourjen as to the price and weight of the item to be purchased casts doubt on the existence of the buy-bust. The Court finds that the objective test is satisfied in this case; 86 a legitimate buy-bust operation was conducted against Lourjen. The evidence presented by the prosecution firmly establishes its occurrence. To stress, SPO1 Cuasito, the poseur-buyer himself, was presented in the stand. He was able to credibly narrate the details of how the illegal sale occurred: from their introduction by the CI, the inquiry on the availability of items, and up to the exchange of marked money and drugs. 87 SPO1 Cuasito was never cross-examined on the specific matter. 88 As already stated, the Court gives great weight and credence to the trial court's appreciation of testimonies, especially if affirmed by the appellate court. Indeed, there was no mention in the testimonies that the poseur-buyer and seller specifically talked about the price and corresponding amount to be purchased. For the Court, however, this does not defeat the showing that the sale was truly consummated; this does not cast any doubt on the existence of the operation. The buyer and seller's agreement to pursue the transaction was apparent and was materialized through the voluntary exchange itself.

As there was a valid buy-bust operation, Lourjen's warrantless arrest is valid. It follows that the subsequent warrantless body search that resulted in the illegal possession charge is likewise valid for being conducted after a lawful arrest.

Proceeding to the rule on chain of custody, the Court finds that the prosecution was able to establish that the police officers complied with the rule. In both offenses of illegal sale and illegal possession, related to establishing the identity of the dangerous drugs is the chain of custody rule as provided in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. 89 The rule establishes the identity of the object of the sale or the item possessed by the accused without authority. Its purpose is to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized dangerous drug in order to fully remove doubts as to its identity. 90 It must be shown that the items presented and identified in court during trial are the very same items that were sold and seized from the accused during the buy-bust. Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 provides that the marking be done immediately at the site after seizure and confiscation of the items. Moreover, the conduct of the inventory and the taking of photographs must be done in the presence of three witnesses: an elected public official, a representative from the DOJ, and a representative from the media. The provision allows for the procedure to be conducted in the nearest police station or office if practicable in case of warrantless seizures. It further provides that the seized items must be immediately brought to the forensic laboratory for examination. The Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165, however, allows for flexibility in providing that non-compliance with the rules on chain of custody will not render the seizure void upon showing that there are justifiable grounds and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. 91

In the instant case, the Court is convinced that the requirements were sufficiently complied with. The prosecution witnesses clearly narrated that the seized items were marked, inventoried, and photographed immediately after seizure at the place of the operation. 92 It was established that the inventory was made in the presence of the three required witnesses: the DOJ representative, media representative, and a barangay councilor. 93 SPO1 Cuasito and PO1 Maquinta testified that the required witnesses were present, and the inventory report indicated their signatures. 94 Further, the seized items remained with SPO1 Cuasito from the time of seizure until transmittal to the forensic laboratory as he did not turn over the items to an investigating officer. After the examination, PCI Llena kept the seized items in the evidence room for safekeeping until transmittal to the court. SPO1 Cuasito and PCI Llena were then able to identify the seized items, through their respective markings, in open court to be the same items seized and examined. 95 Notably, the acts of public officers such as police officers who conduct anti-drug operations enjoy presumption of regularity in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to rebut the same. 96 Lourjen failed to present clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption.

For the Court, there is no gap in the chain of custody of the seized items. The prosecution proved that the police officers observed the rule provided in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. Thus, the identities of the object of the illegal sale and item illegally possessed were sufficiently established.

Considering all the foregoing, the Court finds that the prosecution was able to prove Lourjen's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for both Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The May 8, 2019 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02517 is AFFIRMED. Accused-appellant Lourjen Tolentino is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11, Article of Republic Act No. 9165 in Criminal Case No. 2011-20381 and is sentenced to suffer imprisonment of 12 years and one day, as minimum, to 14 years, as maximum and to pay a fine of P400,000.00. In Criminal Case No. 2011-20382, accused-appellant Lourjen Tolentino is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00.

SO ORDERED." (S.A.J. Perlas-Bernabe, on official leave; J. Hernando, Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2855 dated November 10, 2021.)

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. Spelled as "LOURGEN" in some parts of the records.

2.Rollo, pp. 18-19.

3.Id. at 5-17. Penned by Associate Justice Edward B. Contreras, and concurred in by Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and Dorothy P. Montejo-Gonzaga.

4. CA rollo, pp. 52-6 1. Penned by Judge Rosendo B. Bandai, Jr.

5. Republic Act No. 9165, An Act Instituting the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, Repealing Republic Act No. 6425, Otherwise Known as the Dangerous Drugs Act or 1972, as Amended Providing Funds Therefor, and for Other Purposes [COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002] (2002).

6. Records (Criminal Case No. 2011-20381), p. 3; Records (Criminal Case No. 2011-20382), p. 3.

7. Records (Criminal Case No. 2011-20381), p. 3.

8. Records (Criminal Case No. 2011-20382), p. 3.

9. Records (Criminal Case No. 2011-20381), pp. 51-52, and records (Criminal Case No. 2011-20382), pp. 57-58.

10.Id.

11.Rollo, p. 7. TSN, June 7, 2013, pp. 2-3.

12.Rollo, p. 7.

13.Id.

14.Id.

15.Id.

16.Id. See Records (Criminal Case No. 2011-20381), p. 35, and records (Criminal Case No. 2011-20382), p. 37.

17.Rollo, p. 7.

18.Id.

19.Id.

20.Id.

21.Id.

22.Id.

23.Id.

24.Id.

25.Id.

26.Id.

27.Id. Records (Criminal Case No. 2011-20381), p. 20, and records (Criminal Case No. 2011-20382), p. 22.

28.Id. Records (Criminal Case No. 2011-20381), p. 32, and records (Criminal Case No. 2011-20382), p. 33.

29.Id. at 7-8. Records (Criminal Case No. 2011-20381), p. 23, and records (Criminal Case No. 2011-20382), p. 24.

30.Id. at 8. Records (Criminal Case No. 2011-20381), pp. 26-27, and records (Criminal Case No. 2011-20382), pp. 28-29.

31.Rollo, p. 8.

32. TSN, August 2, 2011, p. 10.

33.Id. at 10-12.

34.Rollo, p. 8.

35.Id.

36.Id.

37.Id.

38.Id.

39.Id.

40.Id.

41.Id.

42. CA rollo, pp. 57-58.

43.Id. at 58.

44.Id. at 56.

45.Id.

46.Id.

47.Id.

48.Id. at 56-57. See TSN, March 5, 2015, pp. 4-11.

49. CA rollo, p. 57.

50.Id. at 52-61.

51.Id. at 58-59.

52.Id. at 59.

53.Id. at 60.

54.Id. at 60-61.

55. Records (Criminal Case No. 2011-20381), pp. 293-295, and records (Criminal Case No. 2011-20382), pp. 261-263.

56. CA rollo, pp. 18-51.

57.Id. at 29-39.

58.Id. at 40.

59.Id. at 40-41.

60.Id. at 41-47.

61.Id. at 69-91.

62.Id. at 77-84.

63.Id. at 85-88.

64.Rollo, pp. 5-17. The dispositive· portion of the CA Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DENIED. The judgment of the RTC, Branch 34, Dumaguete City, dated June 22, 2016, in Criminal Case Nos. 2011-20381 and 2011-20382, is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED.

65.Id. at 10-11.

66.Id. at 11.

67.Id.

68.Id. at 12.

69.Id. at 12-13.

70.Id. at 13-15.

71.Id. at 18-22.

72.Id. (unpaginated).

73.People v. Baluyot, G.R. No. 243390, October 5, 2020. Section 5 of RA 9165 provide:

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.

xxx xxx xxx

74.Id.

75.Id.

76.Plan, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 247589, August 24, 2020. The relevant portion of Section 11 of RA 9165 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:

xxx xxx xxx

Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows:

xxx xxx xxx

(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu", or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy'', PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or less than three hundred (300) grams of marijuana.

77. TSN, June 7, 2013, p. 4.

78. TSN, September 6, 2011, p. 7.

79.Brozoto v. People, G.R. No. 233420, April 28, 2021, citing XXX v. People, G.R. No. 248348, January 15, 2020.

80.Id.

81.People v. Lopez y Canlas, G.R. No. 247974, July 13, 2020.

82.Id., citing People v. Manlangit, 654 Phil. 427, 437 (2011).

83.People v. Mendoza, 814 Phil. 31, 43 (2017).

84.Id.

85. TSN, June 21, 2013, pp. 6-7.

86.Tan v. People, G.R. No. 232611, April 26, 2021.

87. TSN, June 7, 2013, pp. 4-5.

88. See TSN, June 21, 2013, pp. 8-17.

89. The relevant portion of Section 21 of RA 9165 read:

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;

(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 under oath by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued within twenty-four (24) hours after the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of the 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 on the completed forensic laboratory examination on the same within the next twenty-four (24) hours;

xxx xxx xxx

90.People v. Baluyot, supra note 73.

91. Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165, Otherwise Known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, Sec. 21 (2002).

92. TSN, June 7, 2013, pp. 6-9. TSN, September 6, 2011, pp. 8-12.

93.Id. at 9; id. at 11-12. Records (Criminal Case No. 2011-20381), p. 20, and records (Criminal Case No. 2011-20382), p. 22.

94.Id.

95. TSN, June 21, 2013, pp. 4-7. TSN, August 2, 2011, pp. 13-16.

96. See People v. Cabiles, 810 Phil. 969, 976 (2017).