People v. Valasote y Agarin

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 243620. June 23, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. ADRIAN VALASOTE y AGARIN, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 23, 2021 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 243620 (People of the Philippines v. Adrian Valasote y Agarin).

This is an appeal by certiorari seeking to reverse and set aside the July 11, 2018 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09383. The CA affirmed the May 23, 2017 Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Caloocan City, Branch 127, in Criminal Case No. 91948 finding Adrian Valasote y Agarin (appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

Antecedents

Appellant was charged with illegal possession of 7.12 grams of white crystalline substance containing methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) in an Amended Information 3 dated May 21, 2014. The accusatory portion of the latter states:

That on or about the 1st day of May 2014 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control one (1) transparent plastic sachet later marked as "AAV05-01-14" with signature, containing METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE or SHABU weighing 7.12 grams, which when subjected to laboratory examination gave POSITIVE result to the test for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in gross violation of the above-cited law.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 4

During arraignment on June 2, 2014, appellant pleaded "not guilty" to the crime charged. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued. CAIHTE

Version of the Prosecution

The prosecution presented the following witnesses: (1) Police Officer 2 Angelito Gagarin (PO2 Gagarin); (2) Senior Police Officer 1 Noel Gregorio (SPO1 Gregorio); (3) Police Chief Inspector Richard Allan Mangalip (PCI Mangalip); (4) Police Officer 3 Alejandro Billedo, Jr. (PO3 Billedo). 5

PO2 Gagarin testified that on May 1, 2014, he was on duty as a member of the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Group (SAID-SOTG) of the Caloocan City Police Station. He was part of the team dispatched to the area of Marulas A, Barangay 37, Caloocan City, to conduct a buy-bust operation. 6

PO2 Gagarin recalled that on April 30, 2014, before the buy-bust operation, SAID-SOTG received a call from a concerned citizen informing them that certain individuals, including an alias "Mark" and an alias "Aldrin," were selling shabu in the area of Marulas A. Thereafter, SAID-SOTG planned a buy-bust operation. 7 At around 11:00 p.m. of the same day, SAID-SOTG prepared the pre-operation report and the coordination form necessary to carry out the buy-bust operation. PO2 Gagarin was tasked to act as poseur-buyer during the buy-bust. He and the rest of the buy-bust team, accompanied by the confidential informant (CI), headed to Marulas A where the selling of illegal drugs was purportedly taking place. 8

Upon reaching the place, PO2 Gagarin and the CI approached an alias "Mark," who was later identified in court as appellant. The CI told appellant, "Pare, bibili itong kasama ko." Appellant asked how much they wanted to buy and PO2 Gagarin responded, "[k]ung meron sa dalawang tusok." Appellant replied, "Teka lang, wala na akong nakatarya." 9 PO2 Gagarin then tried to hand the buy-bust money over to appellant. At that moment, someone in the vicinity shouted, "may pulis, may pulis[!]" Consequently, appellant tried to run away. However, PO2 Gagarin got hold of and restrained him. PO2 Gagarin recovered the suspected shabu from appellant's right hand. At this point, the police officers assigned as backup came to aid PO2 Gagarin in placing appellant under arrest. 10

PO2 Gagarin marked the seized evidence at the place of arrest. He marked it "AAV 05-01-14" and affixed his signature on the plastic sachet containing the suspected shabu. SPO1 Gregorio informed appellant of his rights. Thereafter, PO2 Gagarin brought the object evidence and appellant to the SAID-SOTG office for processing. PO2 Gagarin turned over appellant and the confiscated evidence to the investigator on duty, PO3 Billedo, who prepared the corresponding evidence acknowledgement receipt and the chain of custody form and subsequently delivered the object evidence to the Northern Police District Crime Laboratory-Valenzuela City Satellite Office. At the crime laboratory, Senior Police Officer 4 Carlos Galapano (SPO4 Galapano) received the specimen from PO3 Billedo. SPO4 Galapano in turn delivered the same to PCI Mangalip, the forensic chemist who performed the laboratory examination on the substance. 11 After examination, the specimen and the urine sample of appellant tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride. 12

SPO1 Gregorio and PO3 Billedo corroborated the narration of facts of PO2 Gagarin, while the parties stipulated on the testimony of PCI Mangalip.

Version of the Defense

Appellant testified that on April 28, 2014, at around 8:00 p.m., while he was cooking in front of his aunt's house, four (4) men wearing t-shirts approached him and asked if he was Mark. When he answered "yes," they immediately handcuffed him. Appellant asked them what his violation was but they did not answer him. He was simply told to go with them. Appellant was taken to the SAID-SOTG office. One of the men took the cash amounting to P400.00 from appellant's pocket. Appellant was detained in a small cell. After several hours, his aunt, Lorly Malapitan, arrived at the police station. One of the men demanded P50,000.00 from appellant and his aunt in exchange for his liberty. Unable to produce the amount, he was brought to the fiscal's office for inquest. Appellant denied that he was caught in possession of a dangerous drug during a buy-bust operation on May 1, 2014. He insisted on the story of his arrest which allegedly took place the night of April 28, 2014. 13

The RTC's Ruling

In its May 23, 2017 Decision, the RTC found appellant guilty of the charge against him. It held that the prosecution was able to establish the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Sec. 11, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165. It opined that the absence of the insulating witnesses did not invalidate the seizure and custody of the seized item because the prosecution was able to prove that the apprehending officers duly preserved the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item. 14 Moreover, the RTC disregarded appellant's denial for being self-serving. The fallo reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding Accused Adrian Valasote y Agarin alias "Mark" GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Violation of Section 11, Article II, RA 9165 and is hereby sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).

With the judgment of conviction, the Jail Warden of Caloocan City Jail is hereby directed to cause the immediate transfer of custody of the said accused to the National Bilibid Prison, Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, Metro Manila for the service of his sentence, and for the said Jail Warden to forthwith submit a written report of his compliance or reason for non-compliance herewith, within ten (10) days from receipt hereof.

The drug subject matter of this case is hereby ordered confiscated in favor of the government. In this regard, the Branch Clerk of Court of this Sala is directed to turn over the said specimen to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for its immediate destruction in accordance with law.

SO ORDERED. 15

The CA's Ruling

In its July 11, 2018 Decision, the CA affirmed appellant's conviction. It ruled that the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. It held that the police officers were able to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item from the moment it was taken from appellant until it was presented in court as evidence. The fallo reads: DETACa

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED, and the May 23, 2017 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 127, in Criminal Case No. 91948, is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.16

Hence, this appeal.

Issues

Appellant raises the following assignment of errors:

I.

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE PROSECUTION'S VERSION OF EVENTS OVER THE DEFENSE'S VERSION OF EVENTS.

II.

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO SHOW THAT THE INTEGRITY AND EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF THE SEIZED ITEM WAS PROPERLY PRESERVED. 17

In its June 10, 2019 Resolution, 18 the Court required the parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desired. In its August 14, 2019 Manifestation and Motion, 19 the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) manifested that it would no longer file a supplemental brief because its appellee's brief had already discussed the propriety of appellant's conviction for violation of Sec. 11, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165. In his August 27, 2019 Manifestation in lieu of Supplemental Brief, 20 appellant averred that he would no longer file a supplemental brief considering that he had thoroughly discussed his defense in his appellant's brief.

In his Appellant's Brief 21 before the CA, appellant claims that there were inconsistencies between the testimony of PO2 Gagarin and the corresponding documentary evidence to support it. He also points out that the prosecution failed to prove the identity of the corpus delicti; that the chain of custody rule was not complied with due to the absence of a representative from the media, a representative from the DOJ, and an elected public official during the inventory of the evidence; that the marking of the allegedly seized drug did not comply with the 2010 PNP Manual on Anti-Illegal Drugs Operation and Investigation; and that the police officers failed to weigh the allegedly seized illegal drug.

In its Appellee's Brief 22 before the CA, the OSG urges this Court to affirm the challenged decision of the RTC because the prosecution has duly proved all the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The OSG insists that the chain of custody rule was complied with and that the police officers were able to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item.

The Court's Ruling

The Court finds the appeal meritorious.

To sustain a conviction for the offense of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be established: (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. 23

It is essential that the identity of the seized drug be established with moral certainty, and it must be proven with exactitude that the substance bought during the buy-bust operation is exactly the same substance offered in evidence before the court. 24 This requirement is known as the chain of custody rule under R.A. No. 9165 created to safeguard doubts concerning the identity of the seized drugs. 25

Chain of custody means the duly recorded, authorized movements, and custody of the seized drugs at each state, from the moment of confiscation to the receipt in the forensic laboratory for examination until its presentation to the court. 26

Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 reads:

(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 chain of custody rule was further expounded under Sec. 21 (a), Art. II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165:

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[.]

Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 requires the apprehending team, after seizure and confiscation, to immediately conduct a physical inventory and photographing of the seized drugs in the presence of: (a) the accused or the persons from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, (b) a representative from the media, (c) a representative from the DOJ, and (d) an elected public official. These four witnesses must all sign the copies of the inventory and obtain a copy thereof. aDSIHc

R.A. No. 10640, which amended Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and became effective on July 23, 2014, 27 requires only three (3) witnesses to be present during the inventory and taking of photographs of the seized evidence, namely: (a) the accused or the persons from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, (b) an elected public official, and (c) a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media.

In the instant case, since the offense charged was committed on May 1, 2014, the provisions of Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 shall apply. Thus, the requirement of four (4) witnesses mandated by law to be present during the inventory and taking of photographs must be complied with.

The noncompliance with the

In the instant case, the buy-bust team committed several patent procedural lapses in the conduct of the seizure and handling of the seized drug — which thus created reasonable doubt as to the identity and integrity of the drug and, consequently, reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused. 28

The testimony of PO2 Gagarin, made it obvious that none of the other three (3) required witnesses were present at the time of seizure of the shabu and the apprehension of the accused. The RTC even acknowledged the absence of the required witnesses but nevertheless opined that the integrity of the seized item was duly preserved.

The Court does not agree.

It must be emphasized that the presence of the required witnesses at the time of the apprehension and inventory is mandatory, and that the law imposes the said requirement because their presence serves an essential purpose. In People v. Tomawis, 29 the Court explained the purpose of the law in mandating the presence of the required witnesses as follows:

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 RA No. 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 RA 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. 30 (emphases and citations omitted)

While it is true that the absence of the abovementioned witnesses does not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible; a justifiable reason for such failure or a showing of any genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses must, however, be adduced. 31 In the absence of the witnesses required by law during the physical inventory and photographing of the seized items, the Court emphasized in People v. Lim32 that:

It must be alleged and proved that the presence of the three witnesses (now two witnesses under R.A. 10640) to the physical inventory and photograph of the illegal drug seized was not obtained due to reason/s such as:

(1) their attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was a remote area; (2) their safety during the inventory and photograph of the seized drugs was threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of the accused or any person/s acting for and in his/her behalf; (3) the elected officials themselves were involved in the punishable acts sought to be apprehended; (4) earnest efforts to secure the presence of a DOJ or media representative and an elected public official within the period required under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code prove futile through no fault of the arresting officers, who face the threat of being charged with arbitrary detention; or (5) time constraints and urgency of the anti-drug operations, which often rely on tips of confidential assets, prevented the law enforcers from obtaining the presence of the required witnesses even before the offenders could escape. 33 (emphases and citation omitted.)

In this case, however, the prosecution offered no justification as to the absence of the three (3) other required witnesses. The prosecution did not even recognize its procedural lapses or give any plausible explanation on why the apprehending team did not conduct the marking, inventory, and taking of photographs of the seized evidence in the presence of the required witnesses. Neither was it proven by the prosecution that the police officers exerted genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of the required witnesses during that time.

The presumption of regularity

By failing to follow even the basic witness requirement under Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, the police officers cannot be presumed to have regularly exercised their duties during the buy-bust operation. The blatant violations committed by police officers cannot be countenanced. 34 Otherwise, the Court will be giving the law enforcers a license to abuse their power and authority, defeating the purpose of the law, violating human rights, and eroding the justice system in this country. 35 ETHIDa

In People v. Zheng Bai Hui, 36 the Court held that it will not presume to set an a priori basis of what detailed acts police authorities might credibly undertake and carry out in their entrapment operations. 37 However, given the police operational procedures and the fact that buy-bust is a planned operation, it strains credulity why the buy-bust team could not have ensured the presence of the required witnesses pursuant to Sec. 21, or at the very least marked, photographed, and inventoried the seized item according to the procedures in their own operations manual.

The prosecution failed to prove

Aside from the requirement of properly justifying the lack of insulating witnesses in the inventory and photography of the seized item, the prosecution must also prove the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated item. In People v. Hementiza, 38 the Court enumerated the links that the prosecution must establish in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation to be as follows: 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 seized marked illegal drug by the forensic chemist to the court.

In this case, aside from noncompliance with the mandatory rules in the inventory and photography of the seized item, the Court finds that the fourth link in the chain of custody was not clearly established by the prosecution.

The last link involves the submission of the seized drugs by the forensic chemist to the court when presented as evidence in the criminal case. 39 In this case, when the prosecution presented the forensic chemist, PCI Mangalip as witness, the parties stipulated:

1. that P/Chief Insp. Engr. RICHARD ALLAN MANGALIP is a bonafide member of the Northern Police District, assigned as Forensic Chemical Officer with the Northern Police District Crime Laboratory Office, located at Valenzuela City Satellite Office Crime Laboratory in Mc Arthur Highway, Malinta, Valenzuela City from May 1 to 6, 2014;

2. that this witness is an expert witness, competent and qualified to testify as such;

3. that on May 1, 2014 at 1:40 in the afternoon, their office received from PO3 ALEJANDRO BILLEDO JR. requests for Laboratory [Examination] and Drug Test forwarding therewith the pieces of evidence described in the said request for laboratory examination and the person of the Accused ADRIAN V ALASOTE y AGARIN, which requests and transmitted specimen were recorded in the presence of this witness by their Desk Officer SPO4 CALAPANO and turned over to this witness at about 1:50 in the afternoon of the same date for laboratory [examination] and drug test;

4. that this witness thereafter conducted a qualitative examination on the transmitted specimen and on the urine sample of the accused and the same proved positive for the presence of METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE as shown in his CHEMISTRY REPORT NOS. D-254-14 and DT-326-14;

5. that upon completion of the laboratory [examination] and drug test, this witness sealed the specimen and deposited the same with their Evidence Custodian and withdrawn for the first time this morning when presented in [c]ourt;

6. that this witness could identify the requests and the specimen he received and examined and the documents he prepared and signed in connection with the laboratory [examination] and drug test he conducted[.] 40

In People v. Pajarin, 41 this Court held that in case the parties stipulate to dispense with the attendance and testimony of the forensic chemist, it should be stipulated that the forensic chemist was to testify that he/she took the precautionary steps required in order to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item, thus: (1) that the forensic chemist received the seized article as marked, properly sealed, and intact; (2) that he/she resealed it after examination of the content; and (3) that he/she placed his/her own marking on the same to ensure that it could not be tampered with pending trial. cSEDTC

In the instant case, the Court finds the abovecited stipulation, as to PCI Mangalip's testimony, lacking. It did not explain the condition of the seized item upon receipt and it failed to identify the custodian who allegedly received it. Nothing on record also shows that PCI Mangalip took precautionary measures after examination of the seized item to preserve its integrity and evidentiary value. Absent any testimony herein regarding the management, storage, and preservation of the illegal drug allegedly seized after its qualitative examination, the fourth link in the chain of custody of the seized item could not be deemed established to a moral certainty. 42

In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the integrity and evidentiary value of the items purportedly seized from appellant had been compromised because of this significant gap in the chain of custody, thereby warranting appellant's acquittal based on reasonable doubt.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is GRANTED. The July 11, 2018 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09383, which affirmed the May 23, 2017 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 127, in Criminal Case No. 91948, finding appellant Adrian Valasote y Agarin guilty of violating Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The Director General of the New Bilibid Prison, Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, is ORDERED to IMMEDIATELY RELEASE the appellant from detention, unless he is being lawfully held in custody for any other reason, and to inform this Court of his actions hereon within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.

Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 2-15; penned by Associate Justice Ramon A. Cruz, with Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Pablito A. Perez, concurring.

2. CA rollo, pp. 62-76; penned by Judge Victoriano B. Cabanos.

3. Records, p. 27.

4.Rollo, p. 3.

5. CA rollo, p. 63.

6.Rollo, p. 3.

7.Id. at 3-4.

8.Id. at 4.

9. CA rollo, p. 64.

10.Rollo, p. 3.

11.Id. at 4-5.

12.Id. at 5-6.

13.Id. at 7-8.

14. CA rollo, p. 74.

15.Id. at 76.

16.Rollo, p. 13.

17. CA rollo, p. 47.

18.Rollo, p. 21.

19.Id. at 23-24.

20.Id. at 26-28.

21. CA rollo, pp. 45-59.

22.Id. at 88-103.

23.People v. Climaco, 687 Phil. 593, 603 (2012); citing People v. Alcuizar, 662 Phil. 794, 808 (2011).

24.People v. Alon-Alon y Lizarda, G.R. No. 237803, November 27, 2019; citing People v. Bartolini, 791 Phil. 626, 634 (2016).

25.People v. Climaco, supra; People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 226 (2015).

26. Section 1 (b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002.

27. OCA Circular No. 77-2015.

28.People v. Santos, G.R. No. 218579, December 5, 2019.

29. 830 Phil. 385 (2018).

30.Id. at 408-409.

31.People v. Baptista, G.R. No. 225783, August 20, 2018; citing People v. Umipang, 686 Phil. 1024, 1052 (2012).

32. G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.

33.Id.

34.People v. Cutamora, G.R. No. 233541, June 8, 2020.

35.Id.

36. 393 Phil. 68 (2000).

37.Id. at 133.

38. 807 Phil. 1017, 1030 (2017) as cited in People v. Omamos, G.R. No. 223036, July 10, 2019.

39.People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 237 (2015).

40.Rollo, pp. 5-6.

41. 654 Phil. 461, 466 (2011) as cited in People v. Ambrosio, G.R. No. 234051, November 27, 2019.

42.People v. Ubungen, 836 Phil. 888, 898 (2018).