FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 254027. July 28, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. RODERICK TUAZON y PRING a.k.a. "BOY", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated July 28, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 254027 (People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee v. Roderick Tuazon y Pring a.k.a. "Boy," accused-appellant). — After careful review of the records, the Court resolves to GRANT the appeal against the August 22, 2019 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11440. The CA affirmed the April 23, 2018 Judgment 2 of the Regional Trial Court, Pasig City, Branch 164 (RTC), finding Roderick Tuazon y Pring a.k.a. "Boy" (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic (R.A.) Act No. 9165.
Antecedents
Accused-appellant was charged with illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs under Secs. 5 and 11, respectively, of Art. II, R.A. No. 9165 in the twin Informations, alleging as follows:
In Criminal Case R-PSG-17-01472-CR
On or about June 10, 2017, in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, not being lawfully authorized to sell any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and give away to PO2 Paulo L. Taylan, a police poseur-buyer, one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.04 gram of white crystalline substance, which was found positive to the tests for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.
Contrary to law. 3
In Criminal Case R-PSG-17-01473-CR
On or about June 10, 2017, in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control[,] six (6) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets each containing white crystalline substance having the following recorded net weights:
a) 0.04 gram;
b) 0.05 gram;
c) 0.05 gram;
d) 0.04 gram;
e) 0.05 gram; and
f) 0.06 gram.
with a total weight of 0.29 [gram] of white crystalline substance which were found positive to the tests for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.
Contrary to law. 4
Accused-appellant pleaded "not guilty" to the charges. Joint trial thereafter ensued.
The prosecution witnesses were: 1) Police Senior Inspector Anghelisa S. Vicente (PSI Vicente), the forensic chemist; Police Officer II Paulo L. Taylan (PO2 Taylan), the poseur-buyer and arresting officer; and Senior Police Officer II Edward D. Maylas (SPO2 Maylas), the investigator. PSI Vicente and SPO2 Maylas' testimonies were dispensed with after the prosecution and the defense stipulated, in sum, that:
1. PSI Vicente is a forensic chemist at the Eastern Police District Crime Laboratory (EPDCL) who received the request for laboratory examination of seven (7) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance with markings from 1PLT June 10, 2017 to 7PLT June 10, 2017, all with signatures; that her findings were reflected on Physical Sciences Report No. D-499-17E; that she re-sealed with masking tape the specimens and affixed her markings and signature thereon, and that they were stored in a self-sealing plastic bag with her markings and signature. 5
2. SPO2 Maylas is a PNP member assigned as an investigator at the time of the instant cases; that he prepared the Chain of Custody Form, the Request for Laboratory Examination and the Request for Drug Test, but he was not the signatory on the said documents. 6
Version of the Prosecution
On June 10, 2017 at 4:00 p.m., Pasig City Police Station Drug Enforcement Unit (SDEU) Chief Police Senior Inspector George Calipusan (PSI Calipusan) conducted a briefing after receiving confidential information from an informant about an illegal operation involving dangerous drugs at Ilang-Ilang Street, Barangay Pineda, Pasig City. He ordered PO2 Taylan to verify the information. PO2 Taylan went to the area to ask around and was told that accused-appellant was previously jailed for selling illegal drugs and yet continued selling even after release. 7
A coordination sheet and a pre-operation report were prepared after the verification, and were faxed to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). The PDEA thereafter authorized the buy-bust team to conduct the buy-bust operation. PSI Calipusan conducted another briefing and designated PO2 Taylan as poseur-buyer whom the informant will accompany, and Police Officer I Louie James Orencio (PO1 Orencio) as immediate backup. PSI Calipusan gave PO2 Taylan two (2) P100.00-bills and two (2) P50.00 bills, all marked with the latter's initials, "PLT." 8
The buy-bust team arrived at the target area at around 9:30 p.m. where accused-appellant was standing in a corner. PO2 Taylan and the informant approached accused-appellant. The informant introduced PO2 Taylan to accused-appellant as a co-worker who wanted to "score." 9
A brief conversation between PO2 Taylan and accused-appellant took place. PO2 Taylan then handed over the buy-bust money to accused-appellant who pocketed it. Accused-appellant brought out a tin box, pulled out a plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance, and handed it to PO2 Taylan. The latter pocketed the sachet and scratched his head, the pre-arranged signal that the transaction was completed. 10
PO2 Taylan then introduced himself as a police officer and advised accused-appellant not to resist. PO2 Taylan confiscated the tin box and placed it inside his pocket. Accused-appellant was ordered to bring out the buy-bust money from his pocket. PO2 Taylan showed accused-appellant his markings on the bills. While handcuffing accused-appellant, PCI Calipusan summoned a barangay official and representatives from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ). 11
PO2 Taylan marked the seized plastic sachet in front of accused-appellant while waiting for the arrival of the summoned representatives. Thereafter, he returned it inside his right pocket. PO2 Taylan brought out the tin box from his left pocket, and, upon opening, saw another six (6) plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance which he marked and signed accordingly. 12
After the marking, the team was informed that the media representative was in Marawi, while the barangay official told them to proceed to the barangay hall. The buy-bust team brought accused-appellant to the house of Kagawad Xavier Garcia (Kgd. Garcia) where PO2 Taylan narrated the buy-bust operation to the latter. PO2 Taylan thereafter prepared the inventory which he and Kgd. Garcia signed. The inventory was likewise photographed. 13
Accused-appellant was then brought to the SDEU office after the marking, inventory and photographing. Thereat, PO2 Taylan presented accused-appellant and the seized items to SPO2 Maylas, the investigator, who informed accused-appellant of his violations and constitutional rights. He also prepared the Chain of Custody, Request for Laboratory Examination, and Request for Drug Test. 14
Version of the Defense
The defense presented accused-appellant and his live-in partner Girlie Cortejo. Accused-appellant denied the charges against him and averred that at the time of the alleged buy-bust operation, he and his live-in partner were walking on their way to the public market when around eight (8) motorcycles blocked their way. The riders held them by their shoulders and frisked them, and were brought to the motorpool. Accused-appellant further claimed that a policeman asked P100,000.00 for their release. 15
Later, they were brought to the Pasig City SDEU at around 6:00 p.m. It was only at that time that they met PO2 Taylan who informed them that he would be their arresting officer. They were then brought to the barangay hall where the alleged confiscated items were presented to Kgd. Garcia. At around 9:00 p.m., they were brought to the EPDCL where they underwent drug tests, and then to the Rizal Medical Center for medical examination. Two days later or on June 12, 2017, they went through inquest proceedings and were informed of the two (2) charges filed against them. 16
RTC Judgment
On April 23, 2018, the RTC rendered judgment finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Secs. 5 and 11, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165. The dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgement is rendered as follows:
1. In R-PSG-17-01472-CR, accused Roderick P. Tuazon is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and imposed upon the [sic] him the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000[.00].
2. In R-PSG-17-01473-CR, accused Roderick P. Tuazon is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and imposed upon him the indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one day, as minimum, to sixteen (16) years, a[s] maximum, and a fine of P300,000.00.
3. The seven sachets of shabu subject of these cases are ordered forfeited and transmitted to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for destruction.
4. The commitment of accused Roderick P. Tuazon to the Bureau of Corrections in Muntinlupa City for the service of his sentence is hereby directed.
SO ORDERED. 17
For the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution duly established all the elements beyond reasonable doubt, namely: 1) identities of the poseur-buyer and the seller; 2) object of the sale; and 3) consideration of the sale, coupled with delivery of the dangerous drug and payment thereof. 18
As regards the offense of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the prosecution was also able to establish all the elements beyond reasonable doubt. The six (6) transparent plastic sachets of shabu were validly obtained from the accused-appellant after he was arrested in flagrante delicto for illegal sale of dangerous drugs. 19
Further, the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs was not broken. 20 There was no gap in the chain and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seven (7) plastic sachets containing shabu seized from accused-appellant had been preserved. 21
The CA Ruling
Accused-appellant's conviction was affirmed by the CA on appeal.
Considering buy-bust operations as a form of an in flagrante delicto arrest sanctioned by Sec. 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, accused-appellant was caught in the act of selling a small transparent plastic sachet containing 0.04 gram of white crystalline substance, which later yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. 22
In his testimony, PO2 Taylan positively identified accused-appellant as the seller of one (1) heat-sealed plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance and whom he handed the marked money to as payment therefor. 23 The delivery of the illicit drug to PO2 Taylan and the receipt by accused-appellant of the marked money consummated the illegal transaction. 24
Moreover, PO2 Taylan recovered six (6) additional heat-sealed plastic sachets of shabu weighing a total of 0.29 gram from accused-appellant's possession, without any authority to possess them. 25 The CA emphasized that possession of a regulated drug per se constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused, absent a satisfactory explanation of such possession; the onus probandi is shifted to the accused, to explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi. 26
With regard to the chain of custody, the prosecution was also able to prove that the same was unbroken. There was substantial compliance with Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165. First, PO2 Taylan marked the dangerous drug subject of the buy-bust operation and the dangerous drugs seized from accused-appellant's possession in his presence and immediately upon confiscation. 27 The CA ruled that marking merely requires that the seized contraband be marked "(1) in the presence of the apprehended violator, and (2) immediately upon confiscation." 28 Further, the lapses of the prosecution in the conduct of the inventory and photographing were explained, and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. 29 There was no possibility of planting, contamination or loss of the seized drugs because they were marked in the presence of the accused-appellant. 30
Second, the stipulations as regards SPO2 Maylas's preparation of the chain of custody form, the request for laboratory examination and the request for drug test, and his ability to identify them sufficiently met the purpose of the second link which refers to the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer. 31
Next, the prosecution established the third link through PO2 Taylan's testimony that he turned over the seized item to the forensic chemist. 32 The seized items did not change hands, thus, there could have been no break in the third link. 33
Lastly, despite non-presentation of the evidence custodian, the fourth link was established through the stipulated testimony of PSI Vicente and the testimony of PO2 Taylan that the evidence custodian appeared and submitted to the branch clerk of the RTC the necessary documentations, as well as the self-sealing transparent plastic sachet — sealed again with masking tape and with marking D-499-17E 11 June 17 and signature — containing seven (7) transparent plastic sachets of white crystalline substance with markings 1PLT June 10, 2017 to 7PLT June 10, 2017, all with signatures. 34
Ultimately, the prosecution had convincingly established an unbroken chain of custody through the totality of the evidence on record. The crucial links in the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs, from the time they were seized from accused-appellant until the same were brought for laboratory examination and later presented in court, were all clearly established. The CA, therefore, held that the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs were adequately preserved and safeguarded. 35
Hence, the present appeal.
In his adopted Appellant's Brief 36 filed before the CA, accused-appellant argued that there were substantial gaps in the chain of custody of the seized drugs which raise doubts on the authenticity of the evidence presented in court. 37 First, the police officers deviated from the standard procedures as regards the seizure and marking of the specimen, to wit:
a. PO2 Taylan immediately marked the seized items while waiting for the insulating representatives to arrive at the place of arrest;
b. After marking the seized items and while waiting for the media representative and the elected barangay official to arrive, the media representative informed them that he was in Marawi while the barangay official instructed them to proceed to the barangay hall since it was already late in the evening;
c. Instead of proceeding to the barangay hall, the police officers went to the house of Kgd. Garcia and PO2 Taylan narrated to the kagawad the buy-bust operation that transpired in his area of responsibility; and,
d. It was also in the house of Kgd. Garcia where the inventory and taking of photographs took place. 38
Moreover, PO2 Taylan's testimony revealed that he was not aware of the procedures they needed to comply with in a buy-bust operation. He never explained the reasons for the procedural lapses they had committed, from the marking at the place of arrest without the presence of any of the insulating witnesses, to the inventory and taking of photographs at the house of the elected barangay official. 39 There was also complete disregard of the second link because the stipulations made in connection thereto failed to establish the conduct of a proper investigation. 40
Further, accused-appellant's constitutional right to be informed at the time of arrest was also violated because it was SPO2 Maylas who informed him of his rights, instead of PO2 Taylan, the arresting officer. 41
Lastly, accused-appellant argued that the prosecution utterly failed to describe the safekeeping measures made by the evidence custodian. The prosecution failed to present the evidence custodian and the lack of stipulation as to how he kept the seized drug from the time of his receipt up to the time it was withdrawn from his possession. Such failure fatally compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated drug item. 42
On the other hand, the prosecution, in its Appellee's Brief, 43 emphasized that in prosecutions for illegal sale of prohibited or dangerous drugs, what is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited or regulated drug or the corpus delicti as evidence. 44 These elements were proven by the testimony of PO2 Taylan, the poseur-buyer. The prosecution maintained that the testimony of a single prosecution witness, if credible and positive, and satisfies the court as to the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, is enough to sustain a conviction. 45
In the illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the prosecution maintained that possession must be with the knowledge of the accused. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation, possession of dangerous drugs per se constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge sufficient to convict an accused. The onus probandi to explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi lies with accused-appellant, which the latter failed to discharge. 46
Lastly, the prosecution countered that a testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized item. Hence, the chain of custody rule need not be applied with pedantic rigor. 47
Issue
WHETHER OR NOT THE GUILT OF ACCUSED-APPELLANT FOR THE OFFENSES OF ILLEGAL SALE AND ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS WAS PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
The Court's Ruling
The Court grants the appeal.
The two (2) most common dangerous drug cases in our jurisdiction are illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. For successful prosecution of these cases under R.A. No. 9165, the following elements must be present:
A. (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, 48 in case of illegal sale of dangerous drugs; and,
B. (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 drug, 49 in case of illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
It must be emphasized, however, that the State bears not only the burden of proving these elements, but also of proving the corpus delicti or the body of the crime. In drug cases, the dangerous drug itself is the very corpus delicti of the violation of the law. 50 It is clear then that there is one common element in these cases that needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Jurisprudence states that it is essential that the identity of the seized drug and/or paraphernalia be established with moral certainty. Thus, in order to obviate any unnecessary doubts on such identity, the prosecution has to show an unbroken chain of custody over the same. It must be able to account for each link in the chain of custody over the dangerous drug/paraphernalia from the moment of seizure up to its presentation in court as evidence of the corpus delicti. 51
There are four (4) links necessary to prove the identity, integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court. 52
Chain of custody broken;
R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, together with its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR), has clearly and explicitly laid out the proper procedure in maintaining an unbroken chain of custody in order to safeguard and preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized prohibited items.
At the time of the alleged entrapment conducted against accused-appellant, Sec. 1 (A) of the Guidelines on the IRR of Sec. 21, R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, provides:
A. Marking, Inventory and Photograph; Chain of Custody Implementing Paragraph "a" of the IRR
xxx xxx xxx
A.1.3. In warrantless seizures, the marking, physical inventory and photograph of the seized items in the presence of the violator shall be done immediately at the place where the drugs were seized or at the nearest police station or nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable.
xxx xxx xxx
A.1.5. The physical inventory and photograph of the seized/confiscated items shall be done in the presence of the suspect or his representative or counsel, with elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service (NPS) or the media, who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory of the seized or confiscated items and be given copy thereof. In case of their refusal to sign, it shall be stated "refused to sign" above their names in the certificate of inventory of the apprehending or seizing officer.
xxx xxx xxx
A.1.7. To prevent switching or contamination, the seized items, which are fungible and indistinct in character, and which have been marked after the seizure, shall be sealed in a container or evidence bag and signed by the apprehending/seizing officer for submission to the forensic laboratory for examination.
The above-mentioned rules laid out the first link in the chain of custody — the seizure and marking which should be immediately done at the place of arrest and seizure. It includes the physical inventory and taking photographs of the seized items in the presence of the accused and third-party witnesses. This link had been repeatedly breached by the apprehending officers. 53
Here, the records clearly showed deviations and flagrant violations of the law. The marking, inventory, and photographing were not immediately done after and at the place of arrest. Instead, they were conducted at the house of the barangay kagawad in the presence of accused-appellant but without a representative from the NPS or the media. Further, the details of the buy-bust operation were merely narrated to the barangay kagawad, which defeated the underlying reason of requiring the presence of the insulating witnesses at the time and place of apprehension, that is, such presence would belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug. 54
Although Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 provides that noncompliance with the 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, the prosecution cannot seek refuge under such saving clause. The prosecution utterly failed to offer justifiable grounds for the gross deviations they committed, thereby casting doubts as to the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.
Similarly, the prosecution failed to satisfactorily establish the second link in the chain of custody which is the transfer of the seized drugs by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer. The investigating officer shall conduct the proper investigation and prepare the necessary documents for the proper transfer of the evidence to the police crime laboratory for testing. Thus, the investigating officer's possession of the seized drugs must be documented and established. 55
In this case, however, the stipulations entered by the parties fell short of showing that the investigating officer conducted a proper investigation. He simply accomplished the necessary documents after PO2 Taylan presented accused-appellant and the seized items.
Lastly, the fourth link was likewise insufficiently shown because aside from the undisputed fact of the non-presentation of the evidence custodian, there was no documentary or testimonial evidence demonstrating the custodian's conduct of safekeeping the seized items, and in what condition the items were in until they were presented in court. 56
In sum, it is to be stressed that the apprehending team must not only be able to show presence of the elements of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs, but they must be able to avoid any perceived deviation in the handling and custody of the seized items. The successful preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized dangerous drugs can only be truly achieved when each and every link in the chain of custody is sufficiently accounted for. The identity of the corpus delicti must, in itself, be proven with moral certainty. When the same is jeopardized by noncompliance with Sec. 21, critical elements of the offense of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs remain wanting. It follows then, that such noncompliance justifies an accused's acquittal. 57
To reiterate, a failure to fully satisfy the requirements under Sec. 21 must be strictly premised on "justifiable grounds." The primary rule that commands a satisfaction of the instructions prescribed by the statute stands. The value of the rule is significant; its noncompliance has serious effects and is fatal to the prosecution's case. 58
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The August 22, 2019 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11440, which affirmed the April 23, 2018 Judgment of the Regional Trial Court, Pasig City, Branch 164, finding Roderick Tuazon y Pring a.k.a. "Boy" guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Accordingly, accused-appellant is hereby ACQUITTED of the offenses of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, and is ORDERED to be IMMEDIATELY RELEASED unless he is being lawfully held for another cause.
Let an entry of judgment be issued immediately.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. The said Director General is ORDERED to REPORT to this Court the action he has taken within five (5) days from receipt hereof.
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.Rollo, pp. 3-33; penned by Associate Justice Rafael Antonio M. Santos, with Associate Justices Samuel H. Gaerlan (now a Member of this Court) and Walter S. Ong, concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 57-74; penned by Presiding Judge Jennifer Albano Pilar.
3.Id. at 57-58.
4.Id. at 58.
5.Rollo, pp. 5-7.
6.Id. at 7.
7.Id. at 7-8.
8.Id. at 8.
9.Id.
10.Id. at 8-9.
11.Id. at 9.
12.Id.
13.Id.
14.Id. at 9-10.
15.Id. at 10.
16.Id. at 10-11.
17. CA rollo, pp. 73-74.
18.Id. at 69.
19.Id. at 70.
20.Id. at 71.
21.Id. at 73.
22.Rollo, pp. 12-13.
23.Id. at 18.
24.Id.
25.Id. at 18-19.
26.Id. at 19.
27.Id. at 24.
28.Id. at 25.
29.Id. at 26.
30.Id. at 27.
31.Id.
32.Id. at 28.
33.Id. at 29.
34.Id. at 29-30.
35.Id. at 30-31.
36. CA rollo, pp. 32-55.
37.Id. at 42.
38.Id. at 44; (emphases in the original).
39.Id. at 48.
40.Id. at 49.
41.Id. at 49-50.
42.Id. at 51.
43.Id. at 84-103.
44.Id. at 95.
45.Id.
46.Id. at 96-97.
47.Id. at 98.
48.People v. Ramos, G.R. No. 243944, March 15, 2021.
49.Id.
50.People v. Manabat, G.R. No. 242947, July 17, 2019.
51.People v. Villalon, Jr., G.R. No. 249412, March 15, 2021.
52.Dela Riva v. People, 769 Phil. 872, 886-887 (2015).
53. See People v. Guinoo, G.R. No. 238114, September 16, 2020 (Notice).
54.People v. Tomawis, 830 Phil. 385, 409 (2018).
55.People v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 235658, June 22, 2020.
56.Id.
57.People v. Que, 824 Phil. 882, 898 (2018).
58.Tolentino v. People, G.R. No. 227217, February 12, 2020.