THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 233206. July 12, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.JESSA TUBAYAN y NAVARRO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 12, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 233206 (People of the Philippines v. Jessa Tubayan y Navarro). — On appeal 1 is the May 15, 2017 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01285-MIN, affirming the March 17, 2014 Consolidated Judgment 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Misamis Oriental Special Drugs Court, Branch 40, Cagayan de Oro City in Criminal Case Nos. 2009-829 and 2009-830 which found accused-appellant Jessa Tubayan y Navarro (accused/appellant or Tubayan) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11, par. 2 (3), Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Factual Antecedents:
In two (2) separate Informations, accused-appellant was charged with the crime of Illegal Possession and Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs as follows:
Criminal Case No. 2009-830:
That on or about December 5, 2009, at more or less 6:10 o'clock in the evening at Blue Cabin Street, Barra, Macabalan, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without lawful authority, willfully, unlawfully and criminally have in his possession, control, and custody one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic, containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu. Weighing more or less 0.01 gm., accused knowing fully well that it is a dangerous drug.
Contrary to and in violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 otherwise known as Comprehensive Drug Act of 2002. 4
Criminal Case No. 2009-829:
That on or about December 5, 2009, at more or less 6:10 o'clock in the evening at Blue Cabin Street, Barra, Macabalan, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without lawful authority, willfully, unlawfully and sell, trade, deliver and give away to IO1 n Elvis M. Taghoy, a PDEA agent one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic, containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu. Weighing more or less 0.01 gm., in consideration of two (2) P100 bills marked money bearing the serial numbers FJ937697 and BO662508, Philippine Currency, accused knowing fully well that it is a dangerous drug.
Contrary to and in violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 otherwise known as Comprehensive Drug Act of 2002. 5
Upon arraignment, Tubayan entered a plea of "not guilty" to both charges. 6 During trial, the prosecution presented the following witnesses: (1) Police Senior Inspector Charity Caceres (PSI Caceres), a Forensic Chemical Officer of the Philippine National Police; (2) Intelligence Officer Elvis M. Tagohoy (IO1 Tagohoy); (3) Intelligence Officer 1 Nestle Carin-Valentos (IO1 Carin); and (4) Richard dela Cruz (Dela Cruz), a media representative of DZEC NET 25 radio station. 7 HSAcaE
Version of the Prosecution:
According to IO1 Tagohoy's testimony, on December 4, 2009 at about 4:30 p.m., a confidential informant identified as Ryan came to their office to relay that a certain Jessa Tubayan was selling illegal drugs in Macabalan, Cagayan de Oro City. Ryan allegedly confirmed such fact by buying drugs from Jessa himself. Upon receiving such information, IO1 Tagohoy relayed the information to their team leader IO2 Neil Vincent Pimentel (IO2 Pimentel). A buy-bust team was formed consisting of IO1 Tagohoy as poseur-buyer, IO1 Carin as arresting officer, and, Paul Avila, Tanya Gacus, IO1 Pateno, IO1 Dela Cerna, and IO1 Alfaro as back up. 8 IO1 Tagohoy was also given two (2) P100.00 bills marked with his initials "EMT" and the serial numbers BQ662508 and FJ937697. 9
Prior to their departure to the target area, Ryan communicated with Tubayan through text message to arrange a sale. Thereafter, IO1 Tagohoy, together with Ryan, boarded a taxi while the rest of the team used their service vehicle and proceeded to the target area. 10 At around 6:00 p.m., while on the road, Ryan identified the woman standing by the store as accused-appellant. Upon alighting the taxi, Tubayan immediately saw Ryan and approached them. IO1 Tagohoy handed the marked money to accused-appellant in exchange for one (1) piece transparent heat-sealed sachet which contained white crystalline substance. After examining the contents of the sachet, IO1 Tagohoy performed the pre-arranged signal of raising his sunglasses and placing on top of his head 11 to show that the sale has been consummated. 12
Seeing the pre-arranged signal, the rest of the team rushed towards them and arrested Tubayan. IO1 Carin informed accused-appellant of her rights and the cause of her arrest. She further searched the person of accused-appellant and found one (1) more transparent heat-sealed sachet with white crystalline substance, as well as the marked money. Thereafter, IO1 Carin turned over these seized items to IO1 Tagohoy. Due to the unruly crowd in Macabalan area, the apprehending officers decided to bring the accused-appellant to their office at Correlas Avenue, Cagayan de Oro City, along with the seized items. 13
At their office, IO1 Tagohoy marked the item handed to him by Tubayan as "EMT-1" with "BB" written at the back. On the other hand, the sachet that was seized by IO1 Carin was marked as "EMT-2" with "confiscated" written at the back. Thereafter, they forwarded the seized items to the PNP Crime Laboratory with the corresponding request for examination. 14
IO1 Carin corroborated IO1 Tagohoy's testimony on all material points. She testified that she was the designated arresting officer who searched the person of accused-appellant. She also stated that she was present when IO1 Tagohoy conducted an inventory of the seized items in the presence of Tubayan. She confirmed that she took pictures of the accused-appellant and the evidence gathered. 15
PSI Caceres also testified that on December 4, 2009 at around 8:50 p.m., she received letter requests from IO1 Tagohoy for a 1) laboratory examination on drug evidence; and 2) drug test on accused-appellant. 16 She stated that she and PO1 Gamaya personally received the two (2) sachets of alleged shabu marked as "EMT-1" with "BB" and "EMT-2" with "confiscated" written at the back. 17 She also said she accompanied accused-appellant in collecting her urine for the drug test. 18 After conducting the examination, she found that the specimens tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. 19
Media representative Dela Cruz testified that Julie Caagaman of PDEA called him on December 4, 2009 to inform him that they had a person in custody arrested for illegal sale and illegal possession of drugs. He confirmed that a PDEA agent made an inventory of the seized items in the presence of the accused-appellant and himself. He added that he also signed the inventory report. 20
Version of the Defense:
The defense had a different version of the story. Accused-appellant claims that on said date, she was in her home in Macabalan washing clothes while her live in partner was out fishing. She only went out to look for her children when two (2) men (Mark and Pimentel) approached her and asked if she was Nene Nacalaban (Nene), to which she answered in the negative. The men asked her to accompany them instead to Nene's house, to which she agreed to. However, while they were in the Blue Cabin Store, the said persons handcuffed her. Upon arrival at Nene's house and discovering she was not there, one of the PDEA agents said that they should release accused-appellant. However, the other member disagreed because it would be an embarrassment. Thereafter, she was brought to the PDEA office 21 where she was shown and told that the two (2) sachets of shabu were hers. 22 When she denied the accusation, Mark slapped her. 23
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:
In its March 17, 2014 Consolidated Judgment, 24 the RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The dispositive portion of the Consolidated Judgment reads:
WHEREFORE, all the foregoing premises considered, the court hereby finds accused Jessa Tubayan y Navarro:
1. In Criminal Case No. 2009-830, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of having committed the offense charged in the information (violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165). She is hereby sentenced to suffer a penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00), without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; and
2. In Criminal Case No. 2009-829, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 11, par. 2(3), Article II of R.A. No. 9165. She is hereby sentenced to suffer a penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to twelve (12) years and two (2) days as maximum, and to pay a fine of P300,000.00, with no subsidiary imprisonment in case of non-payment thereof. HESIcT
The period of her preventive detention shall be credited in her favor. The sachets of shabu are hereby ordered forfeited in favour of the government for the proper disposal in accordance with the rules.
SO ORDERED. 25
Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed 26 arguing that the prosecution was not able to sufficiently establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. She averred that the apprehending officers failed to comply with the procedure on the custody and control of the seized drugs laid down in Section 21 of RA 9165 and its implementing rules. 27 She maintained that the police officers did not immediately conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the required witnesses under Section 21 as follows: (1) her representative or counsel; (2) media representative; (3) Department of Justice (DOJ) representative; and (4) any elected public official. 28 She contended that failure to abide by the proper procedure as mandated by law does not support the presumption of regularity accorded to the PDEA agents. 29 Furthermore, accused-appellant claimed that the inconsistent testimonies of IO1 Tagohoy as to the time the buy-bust operation was conducted cast doubt on his credibility. 30
Conversely, the People, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), maintained that all the elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs were proven based on the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. It argued that in illegal sale of drugs, proof of the transaction or actual sale of dangerous drugs, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti outweigh accused-appellant's denial and alibi, which are weak and self-serving. 31 Moreover, it claimed that the defense failed to overturn the presumption of regularity in the performance of the police officers' duties. 32
It similarly contended that non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 is not fatal as long as there exists a justifiable ground and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. Given that the area was crowded, the apprehending officers correctly decided to proceed to the Philippine Drugs Enforcement Agency (PDEA) office immediately and conduct the marking therein. 33 As testified by the prosecution witnesses, the seized drugs were immediately marked for proper identification and forwarded to the Crime Laboratory for examination. 34
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
The CA, in its assailed May 15, 2017 Decision, 35 affirmed the RTC's ruling. The dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the appeal of accused-appellant Jessa Tubayan y Navarro, is DENIED and the Consolidated Judgment dated March 17, 2014 by the Regional Trial Court of Misamis Oriental Special Drugs Court, Branch 40, Cagayan de Oro City in Criminal Case Nos. 2009-829 and 2009-830 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.36
The appellate court agreed with the trial court that all the elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs were fully established by the prosecution. 37 It held that the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs is consummated the moment the poseur-buyer receives the drugs from the seller. 38 Hence, the prosecution witnesses' identification of the accused-appellant as the seller of the dangerous drugs in exchange for P200.00, as well as the identification of the seized drugs in court to be the same as the ones seized from accused-appellant, sufficiently established that a valid buy-bust operation was conducted. 39 Moreover, their testimonies prove how the transaction transpired from the time Ryan communicated with accused-appellant, up to the exchange of marked money and illegal drugs between IO1 Tagohoy and Tubayan. 40
As to the charge of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the appellate court likewise found that the prosecution was able to prove the same. The appellate court was not convinced by accused-appellant's contention that failure to conduct the inventory in the place of arrest invalidated her arrest and rendered the seized items inadmissible. 41 The appellate court noted that the distance between the place of arrest and the PDEA office where the marking was done, was too near to create a substantial gap in the chain of custody. 42 It also gave consideration to the fact that the place of arrest was too crowded and unruly. 43
As to the alleged inconsistencies in the testimony of IO1 Tagohoy, the CA found that they were too trivial to warrant accused-appellant's acquittal especially since it had no bearing on the elements of the crimes she is charged with. 44
In the present appeal, accused-appellant and appellee adopted their respective briefs filed before the CA as their supplemental briefs. 45
Our Ruling
We find the appeal meritorious.
As a general rule, the trial court's findings of fact, especially when affirmed by the appellate court, are accorded great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal unless facts of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied. 46 The instant case falls under the exception. caITAC
In order to sustain a conviction for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following requisites must concur: (1) identity of the buyer and seller, the object of the sale and its consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and its payment. 47 On the other hand, the elements of the crime of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs are: "(1) the accused is in possession of an item or object that is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possesses the said drug." 48 In both cases, the chain of custody over the dangerous drug must be sufficiently proven to establish the corpus delicti. 49
To dispel any doubt as to the identity of the seized drugs, the prosecution must account for each link in the chain of custody from the moment the drugs are seized until its presentation in court as evidence. 50 The four links are as follows: "(1) the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) the turnover and submission of the seized and marked illegal drug from the forensic chemist to the court." 51
Non-compliance with the
While the CA and RTC correctly found that the elements of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs are present in the instant case, We note that the police officers failed to comply with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, which outlines the procedural requirements in the seizure, custody, and handling of confiscated illegal drugs and/or paraphernalia:
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors 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 persons from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
Furthermore, Section 21 (a) of the IRR of RA 9165 provides:
(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[.] 52 (Emphasis Ours)
In People v. Sendad, 53 this Court clarified the required witnesses under Section 21:
The law further requires that the said inventory and photography be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: (a) if prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, a representative from the media AND the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official; or (b) if after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, "[a]n elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service OR the media." 54 (Citations Omitted)
Since the alleged crime took place in 2009, the required witnesses are: (1) a representative from the media; (2) a representative from the DOJ; and (3) any elected public official. Nonetheless, the Court allows substantial compliance with the three-witness rule if the prosecution proves: (1) a justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (2) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. 55 ICHDca
An examination of the Certificate of Inventory 56 would reveal that the conduct of the inventory and photograph of the seized items was done in the presence of IO1 Tagohoy, media representative Dela Cruz, and the accused-appellant who refused to sign the same. Notably, the presence of a DOJ representative and elected public official is lacking. Moreover, IO1 Tagohoy testified that the media representative only appeared after the accused-appellant was arrested.
Q: By the way Officer Tagohoy, being a member of the PDEA after the evidence was recovered by your group from the accused, did you prepare the inventory receipt or inventory of seized items?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Who prepared the inventory?
A: I sir.
Q: Did you sign the inventory receipt?
A: Yes sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: By the way, during this operation of yours in the buy bust against the accused Jessa Tubayan, did you request the presence of media personnel?
A: Yes sir.
Q: You are telling this Court that the media man was together with you in Barra when you conducted the buy-bust?
A: No sir.
Q: When was this media appear?
A: After the accused was arrested, sir.
Q: And who is this media man? From where did this media man was employed?
A: DZEC sir. 57 [Emphasis Supplied]
Media representative Dela Cruz likewise confirmed that he proceeded to the PDEA office after getting a call from PDEA personnel Juliet Caagaman.
Q: You were being subpoenaed in today's hearing of these cases against Jessa Tubayan, do you recall if you have met this Jessa Tubayan?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Where?
A: PDEA office.
Q: When was that when you meet this Jessa Tubayan?
A: December 4, 2009.
Q: How were you able to go to the office of the PDEA?
A: One of the PDEA personnel Juliet Caagaman called me and saying that they have arrested a person.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: What happened when you arrived there?
A: When I arrived they showed to me the drugs that was confiscated and I ask them how did they confiscate it.
Q: What was their answer?
A: One of them replied it was buy bust.
Q: Who among them?
A: Pimentel.
Q: After that what happened?
A: They made Inventory in front of me.
Q: Where was Jessa Tubayan when the Inventory was made?
A: In front of me.
Q: Who made this inventory?
A: I do not know because it is the new PDEA member.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: What happened to that document, did you sign that document?
A: I sign it.
Q: When, after these items were show in to you or before these items were shown to you?
A: After they showed to me the items. 58
Clearly, records show that Dela Cruz was not even present when the drugs were seized from accused-appellant. This is a deviation from the required procedure under the law because witnesses must be physically present as early as the time of arrest. 59 Since a buy-bust operation is a planned activity, securing the presence of the required witnesses is indispensable considering there is ample time to request for their presence. 60 Thus, the witnesses 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. 61 By doing so, the usual defense of denial and frame-up will be rebutted as the witnesses can confirm whether the buy-bust operation and inventory of the seized drugs were done in their presence. 62
In People v. Señeres, Jr., 63 We ruled that the prosecution must initiate acknowledging and justifying deviations from Section 21, to wit:
Certainly, the prosecution bears the burden of proof to show valid cause for non-compliance with the procedure laid down in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended. It has the positive duty to demonstrate observance thereto in such a way that, during the proceedings before the trial court, it must initiate in acknowledging and justifying any perceived deviations from the requirements of the law. Its failure to follow the mandated procedure must be adequately explained and must be proven as a fact in accordance with the rules on evidence. The rules require that the apprehending officers do not simply mention a justifiable ground, but also clearly state this ground in their sworn affidavit, coupled with a statement on the steps they took to preserve the integrity of the seized item. (Emphasis supplied; Citations omitted)
The absence of the required representatives from the DOJ and media during the conduct of the inventory without any showing that any effort was made to secure their presence, 64 or any sufficient justification for non-compliance with Section 21, 65 warrant the acquittal of the accused-appellant for failure of the prosecution to establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Similarly, this Court is constrained to acquit accused-appellant for the prosecution's failure to strictly comply with the requirements under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. The absence of the DOJ representative and elected barangay official during the conduct of inventory is a procedural lapse that the prosecution overlooked, without any justifiable reason therefor. TCAScE
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The assailed May 15, 2017 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01285-MIN, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Jessa Tubayan y Navarro is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution 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 Superintendent, Correctional Institution for Women-Mindanao, Davao Prison and Penal Farm, B.E. Dujali, Davao del Norte, for immediate implementation. Furthermore, the Superintendent, Correctional Institution for Women, is DIRECTED to report to this Court the action she has taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED."(J. Rosario, designated additional Member per Special Order No. 2833.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. CA rollo, pp. 78-80.
2.Rollo, pp. 3-15. Penned by Associate Justice Ronaldo B. Martin and concurred in by Associate Justices Oscar V. Badelles and Louis P. Acosta.
3. Records (Criminal Case No. 2009-829), pp. 67-77. Penned by Judge Ma. Corazon B. Gaite-Llamderal.
4.Id. at 1.
5. Records (Criminal Case No. 2009-830), p. 23.
6. Records (Criminal Case No. 2009-829), p. 14; Records (Criminal Case No. 2009-830), p. 15.
7. Records (Criminal Case No. 2009-829), p. 22.
8. TSN, February 15, 2011, pp. 24-25.
9. Records (Criminal Case No. 2009-829), p. 2.
10. TSN, February 15, 2011, pp. 8-9.
11.Id. at 9-12.
12.Id. at 11-12.
13.Id. at 14-15.
14.Id. at 14-19.
15. TSN, June 18, 2012, pp. 6-11.
16. TSN, September 20, 2010, pp. 3-4.
17.Id. at 5.
18.Id. at 4.
19.Id. at 5-6.
20. TSN, September 17, 2012, pp. 2-5.
21. TSN, August 19, 2013, pp. 2-6.
22. TSN, February 15, 2011, pp. 7-10.
23. TSN, August 19, 2013, p. 7.
24. Records (Criminal Case No. 2009-829), pp. 67-77.
25. Records (Criminal Case No. 2009-830), pp. 81-82.
26.Id. at 4-20.
27. CA rollo, p. 22.
28.Id.
29.Id. at 25.
30.Id. at 26.
31.Id. at 52-53.
32.Id. at 22.
33.Id.
34.Id. at 56.
35.Rollo, pp. 3-15.
36.Id. at 14.
37.Id. at 10.
38.Id.
39.Id.
40.Id.
41.Id. at 11.
42.Id. at 12.
43.Id.
44.Id. at 13.
45.Id. at 27-37.
46.People v. Kamad, G.R. No. 174198, January 19, 2010, citing People v. Robles y Novilinio, 604 Phil. 536-546 (2009).
47.People v. Sumili, 753 Phil. 342, 348 (2015), citing People v. Almodiel, 680 SCRA 306, 316 (2012).
48.People v. Arposeple, 821 Phil. 340, 361 (2017), citing People v. Montevirgen, 723 Phil. 534, 543 (2013).
49.People v. Crispo, 828 Phil. 416, 436 (2018).
50.People v. Año, 828 Phil. 439, 448 (2018).
51.People v. Angeles, G.R. No. 224223, November 20, 2019. Citations omitted.
52. Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165, Otherwise Known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," August 30, 2002.
53. G.R. No. 242025, November 20, 2019.
54.Id.
55. Section 21 (a), Article II of the IRR of RA 9165 pertinently states: "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."
56. Records (Criminal Case No. 2009-830), p. 7.
57. TSN, February 15, 2011, pp. 16-19.
58. TSN, September 17, 2012, pp. 3-5.
59.People v. Tomawis, 830 Phil. 385, 405, 409 (2018).
60.Id. at 405.
61.Id. at 409.
62.Id.
63. G.R. No. 231008, November 5, 2018.
64.People v. Casilang, G.R. No. 242159, February 5, 2020, citing People v. Umipang, 686 Phil. 1024 (2012).
65.People v. Tomawis, supra note 59 at 410.
n Note from the Publisher: Written as "I01" in the official document.