People v. Ventura y Pachoco

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 248176. September 30, 2020.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. ROSIE VENTURA y PACHOCO a.k.a. "Rosie Silverio Ventura,"accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 30, 2020, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 248176 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee v. ROSIE VENTURA y PACHOCO a.k.a. "Rosie Silverio Ventura," accused-appellant). — The chain of custody rule enshrined under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 functions as a mode of authenticating evidence, 1 ensuring that doubts on the seized item's identity are removed. 2 Thus, the prosecution must prove that the apprehending officers strictly comply with it. Deviations may be substantiated by justifiable reason, but if unexplained, cast doubt on the item's identity and integrity. 3

For this Court's resolution is a Notice of Appeal 4 challenging the Decision 5 of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Regional Trial Court Decision 6 finding Rosie Ventura y Pachoco (Ventura) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale and illegal use of dangerous drugs.

Two sets of Information were filed against Ventura, charging her with illegal sale and use of dangerous drugs, respectively penalized under Sections 5 7 and 15 8 of Republic Act No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. They read:

Criminal Case No. C-89233

That on or about the 11th day of January, 2013, in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court the above-named accused, conspiring together and mutually helping one another, without being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to PO2 FEMAR TAGUINOD, who posed as buyer, METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (Shabu) weighing 0.38 gram, knowing the same to be such, with Michael Sillar y Pareño @Tamek immediately got and turned over to PO2 Femar Taguinod the subject plastic sachet containing shabu and Rose Ventura y Pachoco @Pompey receiving the buy bust money and from whom the said buy bust money was likewise recovered.

Contrary to law. 9

Criminal Case No. C-89234

That on or about the 11th day of January, 2013 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously use METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (Shabu) knowing the same to be such, and when subjected to confirmatory examination gave POSITIVE result to the tests for the presence of Methamphetamine, a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.

Contrary to law. 10

On arraignment, Ventura and her co-accused, Michael Pareño Sillar, (Sillar) pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged. Trial then ensued. Sillar died during trial, leading the case against him to be dismissed. 11

The prosecution's evidence disclosed that on January 11, 2013, an informant reported to the Caloocan City police station that Ventura and Sillar were selling illegal drugs on Vilgomar Street, Sangandaan, Caloocan City. 12

A buy-bust team was then organized, consisting of Senior Police Officer 1 Remegio Valderama (SPO1 Valderama), Police Officer 1 Pemar Taguinod (PO1 Taguinod), the designated poseur-buyer, and seven other police officers as back-up. PO1 Taguinod marked the buy-bust money, a P1,000.00 bill, with his signature. 13

The buy-bust team then proceeded to Jollibee in A. Mabini, Caloocan City to meet the informant. PO1 Taguinod and the informant then went to the target area to find Ventura and Sillar, while the rest of the team stood by waiting for the pre-arranged signal. 14

Once they located Ventura, PO1 Taguinod told her, "Pompey, pakuha naman."15 Ventura then asked how much, to which PO1 Taguinod replied, "Isang tusok lang."16 After receiving the money from PO1 Taguinod, Ventura waived at Sillar and directed him, "Bigyan mo nga ng isang tusok to."17 Sillar left shortly and returned with a plastic sachet containing shabu, which he gave to PO1 Taguinod. At this, the officer touched his right shoulder to signal the sale's consummation to the buy-bust team, which at once arrested Ventura and Sillar. The officers also recovered the buy-bust money and the plastic sachet of shabu, which was marked by PO1 Taguinod with "SILLAR-PACHOCO (BUY BUST) 01-11-13." 18

Subsequently, the police officers brought the seized items and the arrested individuals to their office, and turned them over to PO2 Randulfo Hipolito (PO2 Hipolito), who then inventoried the items. He prepared the Evidence Acknowledgment Receipt, Chain of Custody Form, and Physical Inventory of Evidence. 19

PO2 Hipolito then submitted a Letter-Request for Laboratory Examination and Drug Test to Police Chief Inspector Lourdeliza G. Cejes, the forensic chemist. After examination, it was revealed that the seized item contained shabu. Ventura likewise tested positive for shabu. 20

In her defense, Ventura testified that on the early morning of January 9, 2013, she was inside her house when four men suddenly barged in and searched her place. They recovered nothing, but the men forced Ventura to board a car with two other persons, and then brought them to the headquarters. There, she was asked to provide names of drug pushers. When she could not provide any, the police officers poured hot coffee on her. They demanded P30,000.00 for her freedom, but when she could not produce the amount, they jailed her. 21

After trial, the Regional Trial Court convicted Ventura of the crimes charged in its May 17, 2016 Decision. 22 The dispositive portion reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds and so holds that:

(1) In Criminal Case No. C-89233, accused Rosie Ventura y Pachoco, also known as Rosie Silverio Ventura, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 5 in relation to Section 26, Article II of Republic Act 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and imposes upon her the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT, taking into account the enactment of Republic Act 9346, and a fine of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (PHP500,000.00).

The same case against accused MICHAEL SILLAR y PAREÑO, as per Order dated 16 May 2016, is DISMISSED; and

(2) In Criminal Case No. C-89234, Rosie Ventura y Pachoco, also known as Rosie Silverio Ventura, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 15, Article II of Republic Act 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and imposes upon her the penalty of six (06) months rehabilitation in a government rehabilitation center, to be effected during the service of her prison term.

The drug subject matter of this case is hereby confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government to be dealt with in accordance with law.

Accordingly, let a mittimus be issued for the commitment of accused Rosie Ventura y Pachoco, also known as Rosie Silverio Ventura, to the Correctional Institute for Women, Mandaluyong City for the service of sentence.

SO ORDERED. 23 (Emphasis in the original)

The Regional Trial Court decreed that the prosecution established all the elements of the crimes charged. 24 It gave credence to PO1 Taguinod's narration found in his and SPO1 Valderama's Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay. 25 It further held that the buy-bust team was able to preserve the seized item's integrity and evidentiary value despite noncompliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. 26

Ventura appealed to the Court of Appeals. In her Brief, 27 she maintained that no buy-bust operation took place and that the alleged buy-bust operation "was merely trumped up." 28 She likewise contended that the Regional Trial Court erred in giving credence to PO1 Taguinod's testimony as it was inconsistent. 29

Ventura further alleged that Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 was not strictly followed, compromising the seized item's integrity and evidentiary value. She pointed out that the inventory was done without third-party witnesses, namely, representatives from the media and the Department of Justice, and an elected public official. 30

Finally, Ventura stressed that while Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 sanctions noncompliance with the chain of custody requirement, this saving clause only applies if the justifiable grounds are raised, which the prosecution did not do. 31

The Office of the Solicitor General, on behalf of the People of the Philippines, countered in its Brief 32 that the prosecution's failure to strictly comply with the chain of custody rule does not invalidate the item's seizure. It claimed that the buy-bust team's substantial compliance suffices since the seized drug's integrity has been preserved. 33 It further alleged that surveillance prior to the buy-bust operation was not necessary since the confidential informant accompanied the police officers. 34

Lastly, the Office of the Solicitor General argued that PO1 Taguinod's narration leading to the sale of shabu and Ventura's arrest carries with it the presumption of regularity. It maintains that PO1 Taguinod's testimony must be given full credit, absent any ill motive on his part. 35

In its February 26, 2018 Decision, 36 the Court of Appeals affirmed Ventura's conviction. It ruled that the absence of a prior surveillance or test buy did not render the buy-bust operation invalid. 37 It likewise found that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved despite the police officers' failure to inventory, photograph, and mark them in the presence of the required witnesses. 38

Aggrieved, Ventura filed a Notice of Appeal 39 before the Court of Appeals, which gave it due course in a June 11, 2018 Resolution. 40

In its September 9, 2019 Resolution, 41 this Court noted the case records that the Court of Appeals forwarded and informed the parties that they may file their respective supplemental briefs.

Both the Office of the Solicitor General 42 and accused-appellant 43 manifested that they would no longer file supplemental briefs.

For this Court's resolution is the issue of whether or not the guilt of accused-appellant Rosie Ventura y Pachoco was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

This Court grants the appeal and acquits accused-appellant of the crimes charged.

I

For a charge of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 to prosper, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the following elements exist: "(1) proof that the transaction or sale took place and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence." 44

The corpus delicti refers to the dangerous drugs taken from the accused. 45 To sustain a conviction, the prosecution must show that the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti have been preserved. "This requirement necessarily arises from the illegal drug's unique characteristic that renders it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration, or substitution either by accident or otherwise." 46 Furthermore, in People v. Sagana, 47 this Court explained:

"It is of paramount importance that the existence of the drug, the corpus delicti of the crime, be established beyond doubt." Its identity and integrity must be proven to have been safeguarded. Aside from proving the elements of the charges, "the fact that the substance illegally possessed and sold [was] the same substance offered in court as exhibit must likewise be established with the same degree of certitude as that needed to sustain a guilty verdict." The chain of custody carries out this purpose "as it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed." 48 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)

In this regard, Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 details the procedure for the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized, or surrendered drugs, thus:

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[.]

In connection to this, the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 provides in part:

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 confiscated, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:

(a) 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; Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items[.] (Emphasis supplied)

Thus, the prosecution has the duty to comply with the chain of custody requirements to remove unnecessary doubts on the identity of the seized illegal drugs. As this Court held:

[T]he Prosecution must account for the custody of the incriminating evidence from the moment of seizure and confiscation until the moment it is offered in evidence. That account goes to the weight of evidence. It is not enough that the evidence offered has probative value on the issues, for the evidence must also be sufficiently connected to and tied with the facts in issue. The evidence is not relevant merely because it is available but that it has an actual connection with the transaction involved and with the parties thereto. This is the reason why authentication and laying a foundation for the introduction of evidence are important. 49 (Citations omitted)

II

The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act provides that immediately after seizing the drugs, the apprehending officers shall physically inventory and photograph the items in the presence of the accused, or their representative or counsel, a media representative, a Department of Justice representative, and any elected public official. 50

Here, PO1 Taguinod testified that after the shabu was seized from accused-appellant, he immediately marked it with "SILLAR-PACHOCO (BUY-BUST) 01-11-13." The buy-bust team then took accused-appellant and Sillar to their office for booking and documentation purposes. However, the records do not show that the apprehending officers inventoried and photographed the seized items in the presence of the required third-party witnesses. Worse, none of these witnesses were present during the buy-bust operation itself. 51

This Court stresses that the presence of third-party witnesses during the buy-bust operation serves as an "insulating presence [against] the evils of switching, 'planting' or contamination[.]" 52 Their presence ensures that the item taken from the accused is the same item subjected to marking, inventory, photographing, and examination. 53

While the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the law allows noncompliance with the chain of custody rule, this saving mechanism only applies when the following requisites are established: "first, the prosecution must specifically allege, identify, and prove 'justifiable grounds'; [and] second, it must establish that despite non-compliance, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs and/or drug paraphernalia were properly preserved." 54

In this case, the prosecution offered no reason that will justify their failure to comply with the chain of custody requirements. This failure raises doubt on whether the item confiscated from accused-appellant is the same item presented in court. As the prosecution failed to prove the corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt, this Court is constrained to acquit accused-appellant of illegal sale of dangerous drug.

With accused-appellant having been acquitted of illegal sale, she should likewise be acquitted of illegal use of dangerous drugs. In People v. Angeles, 55 this Court explained:

With the acquittal of the accused-appellant in relation to the charge of violation of Section 5, RA 9165, it follows then that he should likewise be acquitted as to the charge of violation of Section 15, RA 9165.

The case for violation of Section 15, RA 9165 was filed because the accused-appellant was found positive for use of methamphetamine hydrochloride after he was subjected to a drug test following his arrest. This was done in compliance with Section 38, RA 9165[.]

xxx xxx xxx

The accused-appellant was thus subjected to a drug test as a result of his apprehension which, as already illustrated, was conducted in violation of Section 21, RA 9165 — a rule that is a matter of substantive law and cannot be brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality. Section 21, RA 9165 is a statutory exclusionary rule of evidence, bearing in mind that, under the Rules of Court, "evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or these rules."

The results of the drug test cannot thus be used against the accused-appellant for it is considered, under the law, as "fruit of the poisonous tree." In the case of People v. Alicando, it was explained thus:

According to this rule, once the primary source (the "tree") is shown to have been unlawfully obtained, any secondary or derivative evidence (the "fruit") derived from it is also inadmissible. Stated otherwise, illegally seized evidence is obtained as a direct result of the illegal act, whereas the "fruit of the poisonous tree" is the indirect result of the same illegal act. The "fruit of the poisonous tree" is at least once removed from the illegally seized evidence, but it is equally inadmissible. The rule is based on the principle that evidence illegally obtained by the State should not be used to gain other evidence because the originally illegally obtained evidence taints all evidence subsequently obtained. . . .

Applied in the present case, since the apprehension of the accused-appellant by the police officers was illegal for non-compliance with the procedure provided by Section 21, RA 9165, it therefore follows that the drug test conducted on him was likewise illegal for it is an indirect result of his arrest. Otherwise stated, if the accused-appellant was not arrested in the first place, he would not have been subjected to a drug test because Section 38 refers to "any person apprehended or arrested for violating the provisions of this Act." As the accused-appellant was not proved to have violated any of the provisions of RA 9165, then the drug test conducted on him has no leg to stand on. The accused-appellant must perforce be also acquitted of the charge of violating Section 15, RA 9165. 56 (Emphasis in the original, citations omitted)

WHEREFORE, the February 26, 2018 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 08315 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Rosie Ventura y Pachoco a.k.a. "Rosie Silverio Ventura" is ACQUITTED for the prosecution's failure to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. She is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless she is confined for some other lawful cause.

Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women for immediate implementation. The Superintendent is directed to report to this Court, within five days from receipt of this Resolution, the action she has taken. Copies shall also be furnished to the Police General of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for their information.

The Regional Trial Court is directed to turn over the drugs subject of this case to the Dangerous Drugs Board for destruction in accordance with law.

Let entry of final judgement be issued immediately.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.People v. Cervantes, 600 Phil. 819 (2009) [Per J. Velasco, Jr., Second Division].

2.People v. Sagana, 815 Phil. 356, 367-368 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].

3.People v. Ygoy, G.R. No. 215712, August 7, 2019, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65684> [Per C.J. Bersamin, First Division].

4.Rollo, pp. 23-25.

5.Id. at 3-22. The February 26, 2018 Decision in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 08315 was penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (now a member of this Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan-Castillo and Danton Q. Bueser of the Ninth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.

6. CA rollo, pp. 64-77. The May 17, 2016 Decision in Criminal Case Nos. C-89233 and C-89234 was penned by Judge Aurelio R. Ralar, Jr. of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 120.

7. Republic Act No. 9165 (2002), sec. 5 states:

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.

The penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) 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 controlled precursor and essential chemical, or shall act as a broker in such transactions.

If the sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution or transportation of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical transpires within one hundred (100) meters from the school, the maximum penalty shall be imposed in every case.

For drug pushers who use minors or mentally incapacitated individuals as runners, couriers and messengers, or in any other capacity directly connected to the dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals trade, the maximum penalty shall be imposed in every case.

If the victim of the offense is a minor or a mentally incapacitated individual, or should a dangerous drug and/or a controlled precursor and essential chemical involved in any offense herein provided be the proximate cause of death of a victim thereof, the maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed.

The maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed upon any person who organizes, manages or acts as a "financier" of any of the illegal activities prescribed in this Section.

The penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years of imprisonment and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who acts as a "protector/coddler" of any violator of the provisions under this Section.

8. Republic Act No. 9165 (2002), sec. 15 states:

SECTION 15. Use of Dangerous Drugs. — A person apprehended or arrested, who is found to be positive for use of any dangerous drug, after a confirmatory test, shall be imposed a penalty of a minimum of six (6) months rehabilitation in a government center for the first offense, subject to the provisions of Article VIII of this Act. If apprehended using any dangerous drug for the second time, he/she shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years and a fine ranging from Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) to Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00): Provided, That this Section shall not be applicable where the person tested is also found to have in his/her possession such quantity of any dangerous drug provided for under Section 11 of this Act, in which case the provisions stated therein shall apply.

9.Rollo, p. 4.

10.Id. at 4-5.

11.Id.

12.Id.

13.Id.

14.Id. at 5-6.

15.Id. at 6.

16.Id.

17.Id.

18.Id.

19.Id.

20.Id.

21.Id. at 7; See also CA rollo, p. 71.

22. CA rollo, pp. 64-77.

23.Id. at 76-77.

24.Id. at 72-76.

25.Id. at 72 and 74-75.

26.Id. at 73-75.

27.Id. at 41-63.

28.Id. at 49.

29.Id. at 53.

30.Id. at 53-54.

31.Id. at 55-56.

32.Id. at 95-111.

33.Id. at 104-106.

34.Id. at 107-108.

35.Id.at 103.

36.Rollo, pp. 3-22.

37.Id. at 10-11.

38.Id. at 19.

39.Id. at 23-25.

40.Id. at 26.

41.Id. at 28-29.

42.Id. at 31-34.

43.Id. at 35-39.

44.People v. Morales, 630 Phil. 215, 228 (2010) [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division].

45.People v. Angeles, G.R. No. 237355, November 21, 2018, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64869> [Per J. Caguioa, Second Division].

46.People v. Nuarin, 764 Phil. 550, 557 (2015) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].

47. 815 Phil. 356 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].

48.Id. at 367-368.

49.People v. Belocura, 693 Phil. 476, 495-496 (2012) [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].

50. Republic Act No. 9165 (2002), sec. 21.

51.Rollo, p. 19.

52.People v. Que, 824 Phil. 882, 911 (2018) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].

53.Id.

54.Id. at 913.

55. G.R. No. 237355, November 21, 2018, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64869> [Per J. Caguioa, Second Division].

56.Id.