People v. Yap y Tiu

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 253730. September 29, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.CHRISTIAN PAUL YAP y TIU, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 29, 2021, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 253730 (People of the Philippines v. Christian Paul Yap y Tiu). — Before this Court is an ordinary appeal 1 filed by accused-appellant Christian Paul Yap y Tiu (Yap) of the Decision 2 dated June 11, 2019 and Resolution 3 dated January 28, 2020 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11098. The CA denied Yap's appeal of the Judgment 4 dated March 15, 2018 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Virac, Catanduanes, Branch 42 in Criminal Case No. 4994, the dispositive portion of which provides:

WHEREFORE, having proven the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, this Court, hereby, sentences CHRISTIAN PAUL YAP y TIU GUILTY of Violation of Section 5, Article II, R.A. 9165, and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of Php500,000.00 pesos.

The one (1) piece of heat-sealed plastic sachet containing shabu is, hereby, confiscated in favor of the government and shall be turned over to the PDEA for proper disposition.

SO ORDERED.5 (Emphasis in the original)

Yap and Darlon Deinla y Gonzales (Deinla) were charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9165, or the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," in an Information 6 dated March 1, 2014 that states:

"That on or about 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon of February 28, 2014 at Barangay Palnab del Norte, Municipality of Virac, Province of Catanduanes, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused, conspiring and confederating with one another, without authority of the law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, sell to a poseur-buyer, RANDY DE LEON y LOPEZ, one (1) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance, which when subjected to laboratory examination tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as "SHABU" with a gross weight of 0.031 grams; to the damage and prejudice of the public welfare."

CONTRARY TO LAW.

NO BAIL RECOMMENDED. 7

Yap and Deinla were arraigned on April 25, 2014. They both pleaded not guilty. 8 On August 7, 2014, the parties stipulated upon the following matters during the pre-trial:

1. Identity of the accused as Christian Paul Yap y Tiu and Darlon Deinla y Gonzales;

2. That the poseur-buyer, Randy de Leon, is known to Christian Paul Yap y Tiu;

3. That accused Christian Paul Yap was accosted by PO1 Paulo Orendain [sic] at the back of the tricycle; CAIHTE

4. That accused, Darlon Deinla y Gonzales was accosted while he was seated on the blue and black motorcycle near the corner of the street, ten (10) to fifteen (15) meters away from the tricycle where Christian Paul Yap is located. (The location of which is shown in the picture marked as Exhibit "PP-258", where he was about one and a half (1&1/2) meters away from the blue and black motorcycle where he was seated when he was accosted.);

5. That the two (2) accused were subjected to medical and physical examination at the Eastern Bicol Medical Center (EBMC) in compliance with the law;

6. That on February 28, 2014 at around 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon at Palnab Del Norte, Virac, Catanduanes, Christian Paul Yap entered the aisle leading to the house of Randy De Leon and he stayed at least two (2) meters away from the railings to ask for something;

7. That accused, Christian Paul Yap was able to talk to Randy De Leon in front of the house of the grandmother of Randy De Leon while both of them were about two (2) meters from the railings of the terrace;

8. That both accused were on board a motorcycle when they went near the premises of the house of the grandmother of Randy De Leon, with Darlon Deinla as the driver and Christian Paul Yap as the back rider;

9. That there was no more drug or drug paraphernalia recovered from the body of Christian Paul Yap after he was accosted;

10. That upon arrest of the two (2) accused, they were brought to the Virac Municipal Police Station;

11. Existence of Police Blotter Entry. 9

Plaintiff-appellee alleged that on February 28, 2014, at around 1:29 p.m., Randy De Leon (De Leon), 10 a former police asset, 11 received a text message from Yap offering to sell him shabu worth P500.00. De Leon negotiated with Yap and they eventually agreed on the price of P300.00. The transaction was going to take place at the house of De Leon's grandmother in Barangay (Brgy.) Palnab del Norte, Virac, Catanduanes where he resides. 12

De Leon sent a text message to PO2 Jick Zafe (PO2 Zafe) regarding the transaction. He also went to the Virac Police Station where he personally spoke with PO2 Zafe. 13 At 2:00 p.m. on the same day, PO2 Cheerylane Camano (PO2 Camano) emailed the Coordination Form and Pre-Operation Report to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). The PDEA sent a Certificate of Coordination. 14

PSI Johhny Ray Isic (PSI Isic) conducted a briefing at 2:30 p.m. on the buy-bust operation against Yap. De Leon was designated as a poseur-buyer while PO1 Paolo Blanco Orandain (PO1 Orandain) and PO2 Zafe were designated as the arresting officers. PO3 Dario Gregorio (PO3 Gregorio) and PO3 Sharmy Destura (PO3 Destura) were also part of the buy-bust team. 15 A P200.00-bill and P100.00-bill marked with De Leon's signature would be used for the transaction. 16 De Leon and the buy-bust team then proceeded to the house of the former's grandmother. 17

While they were at the house of De Leon's grandmother, a motorcycle with two men on board passed by. After De Leon recognized the passenger as Yap, the police officers hid inside the house. 18 PO1 Orandain hid at the back wall of the sala leading to the kitchen while PO2 Zafe hid at the back of a wall. 19 Yap alighted from the motorcycle being driven by Deinla while Deinla parked at the corner of the road and stayed there. De Leon and Yap met at the terrace. De Leon said "Hain na padi?" or "Where is it now, padi?" Yap handed a plastic sachet to De Leon. In order to let the police officers know that he received the sachet, De Leon checked the sachet and remarked "Kadiit man" (It's very few). He transferred the sachet to his left hand and took the marked money from his right pocket using his right hand. De Leon handed the money to Yap who then said "Baad marked money an?" (Maybe it's marked money?). De Leon took back the money and showed it to Yap while covering the portion where it is marked. He said "Bako hilinga daw kung marked money" (No, look if it is marked money). De Leon rolled and twisted the money then gave it to Yap who said "Mara na padi ta matira na ako" (Come now, padi, as I will use it now). 20

PO1 Orandain and PO2 Zafe came out from hiding. PO1 Orandain held Yap's right wrist which was holding the money. Yap was able to escape and he ran to the alley where he inserted the money in the ignition switch of PO2 Zafe's motorcycle. 21 Yap then sat on the baggage carrier of a tricycle parked along the road where he was arrested by PO1 Orandain. PO1 Orandain informed him of his constitutional rights in the Bicol dialect. Deinla was arrested by PO2 Zafe. 22

Media representative Janelyn Rima (Rima) searched the body of PO1 Orandain before PO1 Orandain searched the body of Yap. PO1 Orandain seized the following items from Yap: a violet Nokia 1280 cellular phone, three keys, one P50.00-bill, and one green lighter. 23 PO1 Orandain also took the money from the ignition key of PO2 Zafe's motorcycle. He placed it together with the other items on the pavement. PO1 Orandain marked all the items he seized from Yap while De Leon marked the sachet he received from Yap with "PADI." 24 SPO3 Juanito Tevar (SPO3 Tevar) conducted an inventory of the seized items in the presence of Rima, Department of Justice (DOJ) representative Rudy Templonuevo (Templonuevo), Punong Brgy. Natividad L. Toledo (Punong Brgy. Toledo), and Brgy. Kagawad Kristine L. Po (Brgy. Kgwd. Po). The witnesses, SPO3 Tevar, and Deinla signed the Receipt/Inventory of Property Received. 25 Yap refused to sign the document and his refusal was noted thereon. 26 PO1 John Henry Obogne (PO1 Obogne) took pictures of Yap's arrest at the tricycle, Deinla, and the conduct of the inventory. 27 DETACa

Yap and Deinla were brought together with the seized items to the Virac Municipal Police Station where the Request for Laboratory Examination and Request for Drug Test were prepared by SPO3 Tevar. 28 The incident was also recorded in the police blotter. 29 Thereafter, De Leon and PSI Isic proceeded to the Catanduanes Crime Laboratory where De Leon gave the sachet to PO1 Carlo Agawa (PO1 Agawa). 30 After confirming that the specimen matched what was listed in the Request, PO1 Agawa placed the sachet inside a white envelope which he sealed with a masking tape and marked it. 31 The following day, PO1 Agawa travelled to Camp Simeon Ola where he turned over the white envelope containing the sachet to PCI Josephine Macura Clemen (PCI Clemen). PCI Clemen conducted an examination on the contents of the sachet. She prepared Chemistry Report No. D-010-2014 which states that the specimen was positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. 32 PCI Clemen also conducted an examination on the urine samples of Yap and Deinla on March 8, 2014. According to Chemistry Report Nos. DTC-08-2014 and DTC-09-2014, both urine samples contain methamphetamine metabolite, a dangerous drug. 33

Plaintiff-appellee presented the following persons as its witnesses: (1) De Leon; (2) PO1 Agawa; (3) PO1 Orandain; (4) PO1 Obogne; (5) SPO3 Tevar; (6) PO2 Camano; (7) PCI Clemen; (8) Punong Brgy. Toledo; and (9) Brgy. Kgwd. Po. A re-enactment of what transpired was also conducted at the place of the incident on November 14, 2014. 34

After PO1 Orandain testified on January 23, 2015, the Court dismissed the charge against Deinla. This was because PO1 Orandain's testimony made it clear that Deinla had no participation in the crime. Nothing illegal was found on his body or on the motorcycle that he owned. There was no evidence that he conspired with Yap. He was quite far from the house of De Leon's grandmother when the transaction was taking place. Deinla did not leave the place where he parked his motorcycle and submitted himself after the police officers approached him. 35

Yap was the sole witness for his defense. He testified that on February 28, 2014, he was at home in Brgy. Concepcion, Virac, Catanduanes when he sent a text message to Deinla asking the latter to accompany him to his piggery in Brgy. Antipolo. Yap also received a text message from an unregistered number. It turned out to be his friend De Leon. Yap asked De Leon if he still has a Nutella chocolate spread and offered to pay P150.00 for it. 36 Later on, Deinla fetched Yap from his house and they proceeded to a gas station in Brgy. Sta. Elena. Thereafter, they went to a grocery store in Brgy. Gogon where Yap was supposed to sell empty bottles of beer & soft drinks. He was unable to do so because the owner of the store was not around. Yap received a text message from De Leon that he was at his grandmother's house. Yap and Deinla then proceeded to the house. When they arrived at Brgy. Palnab, Yap had to pass through a small alley before reaching the house. He saw De Leon inside the terrace. De Leon said that he was not able to get the chocolate spread from his wife in San Isidro, Virac, Catanduanes. Thus, Yap responded that he will just return. When Yap was about to leave, De Leon said "Padi tipatira ko na." According to Yap, De Leon said this because they used to "jam." Yap also thought that De Leon said this because he told the latter that he looked pale. Yap declined De Leon's offer because he was planning to go abroad. He then went back to the alley when someone suddenly placed an arm around his neck. Yap turned around and saw that this was PO2 Zafe. He also saw PO3 Destura running towards Deinla. Yap surmised that he was being set-up after he declined PO3 Gregorio's offer to frame-up another police officer. 37

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

On March 15, 2018, the RTC rendered its Judgment 38 finding Yap guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 and sentenced him to a penalty of life imprisonment and a fine P500,000.00. 39First, the RTC was not convinced with Yap's explanation that he went to the house of De Leon's grandmother to get the Nutella spread. Yap admitted that De Leon did not tell him that the spread was available. According to the RTC, this means that De Leon was unaware that Yap would drop by his house on that specific date and time. The police officers would not have positioned themselves inside De Leon's house. The fact that they did proves that there was an agreement between Yap and De Leon regarding the sale of shabu. In addition, the buy-bust operation was recorded in the Virac Municipal Police Station. The money that Yap inserted in PO2 Zafe's motorcycle had the same serial numbers as those marked by De Leon. 40

Second, the RTC held that De Leon was caught in flagrante delicto selling one piece of plastic sachet containing methamphetamine hydrochloride. This was duly proven by the testimonies of plaintiff-appellee's witnesses which were supported by the object evidence that it submitted, namely the sachet of shabu and the marked money. De Leon identified the sachet and the money. These were also shown in the pictures of the operation. The positive identification made by plaintiff-appellee's witnesses prevails over Yap's denial.

Third, the RTC ruled that the chain of custody of the sachet, from the time that De Leon received the sachet of shabu until its presentation in court by PCI Clemen, was duly established by plaintiff-appellee. 41 Yap filed a motion for reconsideration that was denied by the RTC. 42 Thus, he appealed to the CA.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

On June 11, 2019, the CA rendered its Decision 43 denying Yap's appeal. 44 The CA held that there was continuity in the chain of custody of the dangerous drugs seized from Yap based on the testimonies of plaintiff-appellee's witnesses. For the first and second links, De Leon and PO1 Orandain testified that after the buy-bust operation, De Leon immediately marked the sachet and an onsite inventory was conducted in the presence of the required witnesses. For the third link, PO1 Agawa testified on how he received the specimen from De Leon. For the fourth link, PCI Clemen testified on her receipt of the specimen. Taken together, their testimonies successfully demonstrated that there was no gap in the chain of custody. 45

With respect to Yap's allegation that the testimonies of plaintiff-appellee's witnesses were indecisive, conflicting, and contradictory, the CA held that a witness' testimony can only by impeached through his or her own prior inconsistent statement or declaration. Even assuming that Yap was able to prove this, the CA ruled that the inconsistencies are too minor and trivial or inconsequential to affect the credibility of the witnesses because the inconsistencies have been duly explained by the witnesses. 46 aDSIHc

The CA found that Yap was unable to support his denial and claim of frame-up with strong and convincing evidence. He questioned the defects in the buy-bust operation, specifically the inexact name in the Pre-Operation Report and the imprecise date and time in the Certificate of Coordination. However, R.A. 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations are silent on the consequence of the law enforcers' failure to seek the authority of the PDEA to conduct a buy-bust operation. This means that law enforcement bodies are still authorized to perform functions that are similar to that of PDEA's. PDEA's lack of participation will not render the evidence inadmissible. 47

Yap filed a motion for reconsideration. After the CA denied it, 48 he appealed before this Court. Plaintiff-appellee filed a Manifestation 49 that it will no longer file a supplementary brief because it already exhaustively discussed its arguments in its brief before the CA. 50 Yap filed a Supplemental Brief 51 where he adopted his arguments in his Brief and Motion for Reconsideration before the CA. 52

First, Yap questioned the preparation for the buy-bust operation. The Pre-Operation Report did not state the complete names of the members of the team and the description of the firearms that they will use in the operation. The Coordination Form was not signed by PO2 Camano and the Certificate of Coordination from the PDEA shows that coordination was not made before the operation but at 3:40 p.m. PO1 Orandain testified that they arrived at Brgy. Palnab before 2:00 p.m. while PO2 Camano testified that she sent the Coordination Form and Pre-Operation Report at 2:00 p.m. Moreover, the Certificate of Coordination was not properly identified because the one who issued it was not presented during trial. PO2 Camano admitted that she cannot show any acknowledgment from the PDEA of its receipt of the documents. The lapses in the coordination supports Yap's claim that no buy bust operation was conducted. 53 Yap also pointed out that the marked money was supposedly photocopied and the photocopy subscribed before Prosecutor Donabel Breva prior to the operation. But De Leon said that they did not go to the office of the fiscal after they left the Virac Municipal Police Station before going to his house. PO1 Orandain and PO2 Zafe did not mention the preparation of the marked money in their affidavits. 54

Second, there were inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses. De Leon declared in his affidavit that they left the police station at 2:30 p.m. while PO1 Orandain said they arrived at Brgy. Palnab before 2:00 p.m. Also, De Leon stated in his affidavit that Yap gave him the sachet of shabu after he gave the latter the money. But during his testimony, he claimed that Yap handed over the shabu first before he gave the money. In addition, De Leon stated in his affidavit that he and Yap already agreed on the price of the shabu before he went to the police station. In contrast, he testified that he negotiated the amount while at the police station. De Leon did not give any explanation for his inconsistencies. PO1 Orandain was likewise inconsistent. He said in his affidavit that he hid at a nearby house but during the re-enactment, be claimed that he hid at the back of the wall of the sala leading to the kitchen of the house of De Leon's grandmother. 55

Third, Yap questioned why PO2 Zafe was not presented as a witness. Likewise, the text messages allegedly exchanged by De Leon and Yap were not submitted as evidence. De Leon's testimony failed to establish that he was the buyer while Yap was the seller of the shabu. He did not refer to a prior arrangement that they had regarding the purchase of shabu. In contrast, De Leon confirmed that he and Yap talked about the sandwich spread. There was nothing wrong with Yap going to De Leon's house even if he was not sure that the sandwich spread was available. 56

Fourth, there was no pre-arranged signal to signify the consummation of the transaction. This supports Yap's contention that there was no buy-bust operation. 57 Moreover, it is incredulous how Yap was supposedly able to place the money at PO2 Zafe's motorcycle when there were other police officers at the area. Also, PO3 Destura claimed that Yap was on the Drug Watch List for the 4th quarter of 2013 and 1st quarter Target List, and yet they did not obtain a search warrant against him. 58

Fifth, the three witnesses required under Section 21 were nowhere near the area at the time that Yap was arrested. Templonuevo and Rima did not testify before the court. Photographs immediately after the arrest were not taken. Hence, it cannot be ascertained when the witnesses arrived at the place where the inventory was conducted. 59 Also, De Leon did not immediately mark the sachet of shabu. He was roaming around while Yap and Deinla were being searched. Thus, the evidence has been compromised. 60

Sixth, Yap questioned the handling of the drug specimen. De Leon does not know whether the drug specimen allegedly seized from Yap remained in his possession during the inventory. PO1 Agawa testified that the sachet was not signed when he received it. Its appearance in court was different from its appearance when he first received it. Envelopes were not included in the items that PO1 Agawa received. PO1 Agawa was also not the one who receive the sachet from PCI Clemen after she examined its contents. 61 It was not established who had possession of the sachet of shabu after PCI Clemen examined it and before it was presented in court. 62 All told, Yap argued that plaintiff-appellee failed to overcome the presumption of his innocence and he should be acquitted accordingly. 63 ETHIDa

Plaintiff-appellee argued that Yap's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt. De Leon's straightforward testimony passed the objective test in buy-bust operations, which must start from the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the consideration until the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of the sale. The alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of De Leon and the other witnesses of plaintiff-appellee are irrelevant because they do not constitute the elements of illegal sale of drugs. With respect to the absence of a pre-arranged signal, this will not render the buy-bust operation illegal because the police officers were inside the house and were able to hear the transaction between Yap and De Leon. As for Yap's claim of being framed up, he did not present clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that government officials performed their duties in a regular and proper manner. The RTC duly gave credence to PO1 Orandain's testimony because there is no proof of ill-motive on his part. 64

Ruling of the Court

We grant the appeal.

To sustain a conviction for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165, it is imperative that the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti is shown. In order to do so, Section 21 of R.A. 9165 must be complied with:

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;

xxx xxx xxx 65

Section 21 is not a mere procedural technicality but a matter of substantive law. Any perceived deviations from Section 21 must be acknowledged and justified by the prosecution. 66 In addition, the following must be established: (1) there is a justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (2) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. 67 The justification must be proven as a fact. 68

A more exacting compliance with Section 21 is necessary when a miniscule amount of drugs is involved. 69 The corpus delicti in this case is one (1) sachet of shabu weighing 0.031 gram marked as "PADI" and offered as Exhibit BB. 70 Hence, compliance with Section 21 is of utmost importance.

None of the witnesses required under Section 21 of R.A. 9154 were present during the apprehension of Yap. The presence of these witnesses during the seizure and confiscation would have belied any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug. 71 But the witnesses in this case only arrived after the buy-bust operation was already conducted. PO1 Obogne testified that Yap has been apprehended when he arrived. He arrived almost simultaneously with media representative Rima and DOJ representative Templonuevo. 72 Brgy. Kgwd. Po confirmed that Yap was standing by the tricycle when she arrived. 73 She admitted that she did not see where or from whom the drug specimen was recovered. 74 As for Punong Brgy. Toledo, she said she did not see the other witnesses sign the Receipt/Inventory of Property Seized. She was the last to sign the Receipt/Inventory. 75 This goes to show that while all three witnesses required under Section 21 signed the Receipt/Inventory, they were absent at the time that their presence was required the most, which is when Yap was apprehended. None of these witnesses could ensure that the seized drug came from Yap.

Plaintiff-appellee did not offer any explanation for the belated appearance of the witnesses. According to PO3 Destura, they conducted six operations against Yap in the past. All were aborted because Yap was "sobrang gulang."76 De Leon likewise said that he discussed Yap with the police officers as early as December 2013. 77 Therefore, the police operatives cannot claim that they did not have enough time to sufficiently prepare for the buy-bust operation against Yap on February 28, 2014.

Further, it was not established that De Leon immediately marked the sachet of shabu he received from Yap. The picture offered as Exhibit No. PP-170 shows De Leon holding a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance while the picture offered as Exhibit No. PP-172 shows that the same sachet has no markings. 78 In the picture offered as Exhibit No. PP-180, De Leon is seen marking the sachet with "PADI" in the presence of Rima, Templonuevo, and Brgy. Kgwd. Po. 79 However, plaintiff-appellee did not clarify how much time have lapsed from when De Leon received the sachet from Yap until he finally marked it. It is notable that De Leon is not even a police officer. In People v. Gonzales, 80 the Court held "The importance of the prompt marking cannot be denied, because succeeding handlers of the dangerous drugs or related items will use the marking as reference. Also, the marking operates to set apart as evidence the dangerous drugs or related items from other material from the moment they are confiscated until they are disposed of at the close of the criminal proceedings, thereby forestalling switching, planting, or contamination of evidence." 81 cSEDTC

Furthermore, neither De Leon nor the police officers stored the sachet of shabu in an appropriate container. The Court has held that the seized items should be placed in an envelope or an evidence bag, unless the type and quantity of these items require a different type of handling and/or container, in order to protect them from tampering. 82 SPO3 Tevar said that as far as he could recall, the drug specimen was not placed in any container. 83 De Leon simply kept it in his left hand. What is alarming is that De Leon said that he can no longer recall if the sachet of shabu remained in his hand during the inventory. He had to be reminded of his statement in his Affidavit that he kept the sachet with him until it was brought to the Catanduanes Provincial Crime Laboratory. 84 De Leon's uncertainty makes it doubtful that the sachet of shabu was fully accounted for at all times.

The foregoing lapses render the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti in this case questionable. The Court is not assured that the drug specimen allegedly taken from Yap is the same drug specimen presented in court. Consequently, the Court cannot sustain the conviction of Yap for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated June 11, 2019 and the Resolution dated January 28, 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11098 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Christian Paul Yap y Tiu is ACQUITTED of the crime charged against him and is ORDERED to be IMMEDIATELY RELEASED, unless he is being lawfully held in custody for any other reason. The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to inform this Court of the action taken hereon within five (5) days from receipt hereof.

SO ORDERED." (Leonen, J., on official leave.)

By authority of the Court:

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

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 17-18.

2. Penned by Associate Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr., with the concurrence of Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Gabriel T. Robeniol; id. at 3-16.

3. CA rollo, pp. 253-254.

4. Penned by Acting Presiding Judge Lelu P. Contreras; id. at 107-121.

5.Id. at 121.

6. Records, pp. 1-2.

7.Id. at 1.

8.Id. at 46.

9.Id. at 194-195.

10.Rollo, p. 4.

11. TSN dated November 21, 2014, pp. 17, 28.

12.Rollo, p. 4.

13.Id.

14. CA rollo, p. 110.

15.Id.

16. TSN dated October 16, 2014, p. 16.

17.Rollo, p. 5.

18.Id.

19. CA rollo, p. 112.

20.Rollo, p. 5.

21.Id.

22. CA rollo, p. 111.

23.Rollo, pp. 5-6.

24. CA rollo, p. 111.

25.Rollo, p. 6.

26. Records, p. 20.

27. TSN dated January 30, 2015, p. 5.

28. TSN dated February 6, 2015, p. 19.

29. CA rollo, p. 111.

30.Rollo, p. 6.

31. TSN dated October 10, 2014, p. 22.

32.Rollo, p. 6.

33. Records, p. 356.

34. CA rollo, p. 109.

35. Records, pp. 297-298.

36.Rollo, pp. 6-7.

37. CA rollo, p. 115.

38.Id. at 107-121.

39.Id. at 121.

40.Id. at 118-119.

41.Id. at 120.

42.Id. at 631.

43.Supra note 2.

44.Rollo, p. 16.

45.Id. at 9-12.

46.Id. at 12-14.

47.Id. at 14-16.

48. CA rollo, pp. 253-254.

49.Rollo, pp. 24-25.

50.Id. at 24.

51.Id. at 43-53.

52.Id. at 43-44.

53. CA rollo, pp. 56-59, 199.

54.Rollo, pp. 52-53; CA rollo, pp. 75-78, 209, 207-217.

55. CA rollo, pp. 61, 64-69, & 203-208.

56.Id. at 62-64, 200-202, 222, 228.

57.Id. at 70-75.

58.Id. at 83, 91, 222, 231.

59.Rollo, p. 48.

60. CA rollo, p. 92.

61.Rollo, pp. 49-50.

62. CA rollo, p. 235.

63.Id. at 244.

64.Id. at 136-142.

65. Section 21 of R.A. 9165 was later amended by R.A. 10640, which was approved on July 15, 2014. The incident in this case took place on February 28, 2014.

66.People v. Lim, G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.

67.Limbo v. People, G.R. No. 238299, July 1, 2019.

68.People v. Gamboa, 833 Phil. 1055 (2018).

69.People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78 (2014).

70. Records, p. 431.

71.People v. Tomawis, 830 Phil. 385, 409 (2018).

72. TSN dated February 5, 2015, p. 15.

73. TSN dated August 26, 2016, p. 28.

74.Id. at 30.

75. TSN dated June 10, 2016, p. 17.

76. TSN dated January 12, 2018, p. 4.

77. TSN dated November 21, 2014, p. 19.

78. TSN dated February 5, 2015, pp. 3, 5; records, pp. 124-125.

79.Id. at 9; records, p. 128.

80. 708 Phil. 121, 131 (2013).

81.Id.

82.Tumabini v. People, G.R. No. 224495, February 19, 2020.

83. TSN dated September 3, 2015, p. 20.

84. TSN dated October 17, 2014, pp. 6 & 10-11.