SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 237851. October 13, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. MARIANITO LUNA y NAJORDA @ SUGAR, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated13 October 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 237851 (People of the Philippines vs. Marianito Luna y Najorda @ Sugar). — Before this Court is an appeal from the January 31, 2017 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08104 which affirmed in toto the October 28, 2015 Decision 2 and the February 2, 2016 Order 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 65, finding the accused-appellant Marianito Luna y Najorda (Luna) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Case
Luna was indicted separately for violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 in the Informations dated June 16, 2015. The accusatory portions read:
Criminal Case No. 15-2113
On the 13th day of June 2015, in the city of Makati, the Philippines, accused not being lawfully authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously sell, give away, distribute, and deliver to another white crystalline substance weighing zero point one hundred seventy-one (0.171) gram approximately, containing methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), which is a dangerous drug, in consideration of the amount of Five Hundred Pesos ([P]500), in violation of the aforesaid law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
Criminal Case No. 15-2114
On the 13th day of June 2015, in the city of Makati, the Philippines, accused not being lawfully authorized by law, to possess or otherwise use any dangerous drug and without the corresponding license or prescription, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have in his possession, direct custody, and control white crystalline substance weighing zero point one hundred ninety-four (0.194) gram containing methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), which is a dangerous drug, in violation of the aforesaid law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
When arraigned, Luna pleaded not guilty to both charges. After termination of the pre-trial, trial on the merits ensued. CAIHTE
The evidence for the prosecution established that around 6:00 p.m. on June 13, 2015, Police Superintendent Mario Ignacio, of Makati City Police Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Group (SAIDSOTG), ordered the members of the SAIDSOTG to conduct a buy-bust operation against a certain Sugar, later identified as Luna, who was allegedly engaged in illegal sale of drugs in Barangay West Rembo, Makati City. The group was composed of team leader Police Inspector Crisanto Racoma, with Police Officer (PO) 2 Sherwin Limbauan (PO2 Limbauan) as poseur-buyer, PO1 Vladimir Bassig (PO1 Bassig) as back-up officer, and the other operatives as perimeter security. PO2 Limbauan marked the P500.00-bill buy-bust money with his initials "SCL" on the upper right corner. PO2 Limbauan and the informant agreed to meet at the West Rembo barangay hall after the latter confirmed Luna's presence in the said barangay. 6
Thereafter, the team proceeded to the area. After a meeting, PO2 Limbauan and the informant advanced to T. Alonzo Street while the others followed discreetly. PO2 Limbauan noticed a gay male, who the informant identified as Sugar, with slightly long hair and clad in striped polo shirt. They approached him and the informant introduced PO2 Limbauan as Daks, a friend in need of shabu. Luna asked PO2 Limbauan how much he intends to purchase, to which the latter replied a P500 worth of shabu. He handed the money to Luna who then put the same in his left pocket, and then withdrew two plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance from his right pocket and asked him to choose. He returned the other sachet in his right pocket after PO2 Limbauan chose. 7 He also offered PO2 Limbauan his room where the latter could use the drug and the other sachet for free. 8
PO2 Limbauan just smiled and pocketed the sachet, and executed the pre-arranged signal by scratching his head. He apprehended Luna and introduced himself as a police officer. Meanwhile, PO1 Bassig sprinted towards the scene and assisted in the arrest upon seeing the signal. PO2 Limbauan frisked Luna and recovered the marked money from the left pocket and the other sachet from the right pocket. He stashed the marked money and plastic sachet in his left pocket. He informed Luna of his constitutional rights in Tagalog. He then asked for the presence of any barangay official for the purposes of inventory. The apprehending team decided to conduct the marking and inventory-taking at the barangay hall of Barangay West Rembo when the people started to assemble in the scene. 9
At the barangay hall, Sugar was established as Luna, a 54-year-old resident of Barangay West Rembo, Makati City who is single and unemployed. PO2 Limbauan marked the purchased sachet of crystalline substance with "SCL," and the other sachet with "SCL-1," and prepared the Inventory Receipt. Barangay Kagawad Manuel Col-long (Kag. Col-long) of Barangay West Rembo witnessed the marking, photographing, and inventory. Subsequently, the team brought Luna and the seized items to the police station. PO2 Limbauan prepared a Spot Report and turned over to PO3 Voltaire Esguerra (PO3 Esguerra) the same, along with Luna, the Inventory Receipt, marked money, and the confiscated items. PO3 Esguerra drew up the chain of custody form, and the requests for drug test and laboratory examination. 10
Around 10:12 p.m. on the same day, PO2 Limbauan and PO1 Bassig brought Luna and the seized items to the Southern Police District Crime Laboratory Office (SPDCLO), and turned the said items over to the Forensic Chemist Police Chief Inspector Abraham Tecson (PCI Tecson) of the SPDCLO. PCI Tecson examined the substances in the sachets and found the same positive for presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu as per Chemistry Report No. D-643-15. 11 Luna's urine sample yielded a negative result for presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride and THC metabolites. The plastic sachets were handed over to SPDCLO Evidence Custodian Senior Police Officer 2 Miriam Santos Ciocon. PO2 Limbauan and PO1 Bassig brought Luna to Palanan Health Center for medical examination. 12
For his defense, Luna denied the charges against him. He narrated that on June 12, 2015, he was in a drinking session with his friend Ronald Incomienda (Incomienda) when three armed men abruptly barged in his house. They were looking for a certain RV and Jomar. He and Incomienda denied knowing the said persons. However, they were handcuffed, brought, and detained at the Criminal Investigation Division, Makati Police Station. He learned from a visiting friend the next day that Incomienda was freed after the latter's mother pleaded for his release. He insisted that he was arrested on June 12, 2015 and that he first saw the alleged dangerous drugs when he was brought to the barangay hall on June 13, 2015. 13
The RTC Ruling
In a Decision dated October 28, 2015, the RTC found Luna guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs. The fallo of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
I. In Criminal Case No. [15-2113], the court finds the accused Marianito Luna y Najorda, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 5, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 and sentences him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a line of Five hundred [T]housand Pesos ([P]500,000.00).
2. In Criminal Case No. [15-2114], the court finds the same accused, Marianito Luna y Najorda, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 11, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 and sentences him to suffer the penalty imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months, as maximum, and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos ([P]300,000.00).
The period of detention of the accused should be given full credit.
Let the dangerous drugs subject matter of these cases be disposed of in the manner provided for by law.
The Branch Clerk of Court is directed to transmit the plastic sachets containing shabu subject matter of these cases to the PDEA for said agency's appropriate disposition. DETACa
SO ORDERED. 14
The trial court held that the prosecution adequately established the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The operatives of SAIDSOTG conducted a valid buy-bust operation. PO2 Limbauan purchased 0.171 gram of crystalline substance from Luna, and the subsequent laboratory test confirmed that the substance was indeed shabu. As to illegal possession, it was proven that PO2 Limbauan seized from Luna the plastic sachet containing shabu. Luna had no authority to possess the dangerous drug or any license or prescription to possess the same. Moreover, the prosecution successfully demonstrated the unbroken chain of custody of the seized items. First, PO2 Limbauan recovered and marked the sachets with "SCL" and "SCL-1"; second, PO3 Esguerra, the investigator to whom PO2 Limbauan turned over the items after inventory, signed a request for laboratory examination of the items; third, PO2 Limbauan received the items from PO3 Esguerra for delivery to the laboratory; fourth, PCI Tecson received the said items from PO2 Limbauan; fifth, PCI Tecson prepared the Chemistry Report confirming the seized items were shabu; and last, PCI Tecson brought the items before the trial court for presentation and marked as Exhibits "J" and "K."
The RTC ruled that from the language of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, the failure of the police officers to comply strictly with the requirement of witnesses to the inventory is not necessarily fatal. What is essential is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. The defense failed to overcome the presumption of regularity of performance of duties through a clear and convincing evidence that the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation did not properly perform their duty or that they were actuated by an improper motive. Luna only proffered a bare denial. 15
In an Order dated February 2, 2016, the RTC denied Luna's motion for reconsideration. It held that the supposed inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses are minor which may even bolster their credibility as witnesses who testified in a spontaneous and unrehearsed manner. 16
Aggrieved, Luna appealed to the CA.
The CA Ruling
On appeal, the CA affirmed in toto the decision of the RTC. It held that the prosecution presented an unbroken chain of custody of the plastic sachets containing the shabu seized from Luna during the buy-bust operation until the same were examined by the SPDCLO. These took place in a matter of hours. The buy-bust team arrived at the scene on June 13, 2015 around 9:15 p.m., and the confiscated items were turned over to the laboratory at 10:25 p.m. At 4:00 a.m. on June 14, 2015, the forensic chemist completed the examination. The non-presentation of the evidence custodian did not create a serious doubt as to the identity of the shabu presented before the trial court. Since there was no showing that the chain of custody had been broken, it is not required to present every person who touched the seized shabu. 17 The absence of the representatives from the media and the National Prosecution Service (NPS) is inconsequential as it was ruled that the failure of the apprehending officers in a buy-bust operation to conduct a physical inventory and to photograph the items is excused provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the said items have been preserved. 18 The decretal portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the trial court's Decision dated October 28, 2015 and Order dated February 2, 2016 are AFFIRMEDin toto.
SO ORDERED. 19
Essentially, Luna prays for his acquittal. He argues that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the corpus delicti due to the substantial gaps in the chain of custody. There was no proof that the police officers complied with the provisions of Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 particularly, the presence of a member of the media or the DOJ during the conduct of inventory.
Ruling of the Court
The Court finds the appeal impressed with merit.
Settled is the rule that the trial court's findings of fact are entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal, especially when affirmed by the CA. However, the same rule admits of exceptions such as where facts of weight and substance, with direct and material bearing on the final outcome of the case, have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied. 20 After due consideration of the records of the case and the relevant law and jurisprudence, the Court finds that this case falls under the exception. ATICcS
Luna was separately charged with the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu. In order to properly secure the conviction of the accused charged with illegal sale of prohibited drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the following must concur: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and its consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 21 While in prosecutions for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, it must be shown that: (1) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a dangerous drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug. 22
In the illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money by the seller successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction. What is material, therefore, is the proof that the transaction or sale transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti, as evidence. 23 On the other hand, in illegal possession, the existence of the drug is the very corpus delicti of the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs and, thus, a condition sine qua non for conviction. 24
It is settled that courts must exercise "heightened scrutiny, consistent with the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, in evaluating cases involving miniscule amounts of drugs [as they] can be readily planted and tampered." 25 As this case involves miniscule amounts of illegal drugs, the Court finds it proper to evaluate the case thoroughly and decide whether there was strict adherence to the law and procedure or if there is any deviation, whether any reasonable ground was properly addressed before the trial court and that the same was proven as a fact to properly invoke the saving clause in the law.
Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, 26 provides for the procedural safeguards in the handling of seized drugs by the apprehending officer/team, to wit:
SEC. 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 dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media 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, finally, That noncompliance of 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 and custody over said items. (Emphasis supplied)
Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) require the apprehending team to conduct a physical inventory and photographing of the seized items immediately after seizure and confiscation. Additionally, two witnesses must be present during the conduct of the physical inventory and taking of photograph of the seized items, namely: (a) an elected public official; and (b) either a representative from the NPS or the media. The presence of the witnesses was intended as a guarantee against planting of evidence and frame-up, as they were "necessary to insulate the apprehension and incrimination proceedings from any taint of illegitimacy or irregularity." 27
The procedure in Section 21 is a matter of substantive law, and cannot be brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality; or worse, ignored as an impediment to the conviction of illegal drug suspects. 28 The Court has recognized that due to varying field conditions, strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure may not always be possible. As such, the failure of the apprehending team to strictly comply with the same would not ipso facto render the seizure and custody over the items as void and invalid, provided that the prosecution satisfactorily proves that: (a) there is a justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. 29
A perusal of the records reveals that the apprehending officers committed an unfounded deviation from the chain of custody rule which put into question the integrity and evidentiary value of the dangerous drugs allegedly seized from Luna. There was only one witness for the inventory and photographing of the illegal drugs. Kag. Col-long's lone signature in the Inventory Receipt as witness proves the absence of either a member of the media or representative of the NPS. 30 PO1 Limbauan admitted the same in his sinumpaang salaysay, to wit:
T: Pagkatapos ano pa ang sumunod na pangyayari?
S: Pagkatapos po ay sinabihan ko na ng karapatang pantao si @ SUGAR at dahilan ng kanyang pagkaka-aresto sa wikang tagalog na kung saan ay ito ay kanyang naiintindihan. Pagkatapos ay nagpatawag na po kami ng elected Barangay Official para sa pag iimbentaryo ng mga narecover na ebidensya kay @ SUGAR. Pagkalipas ng ilang Segundo ay dumadami na po ang mga tao sa nasabing lugar kaya kami ay napilitan po na umalis bilang proteksyon sa aming sarili at sa kaligtasan na rin ng aming arestadong tao. Kami ay nagtungo sa Brgy. Hall ng West Rembo upang dito ay mag imbentaryo. Sa loob ng Brgy. Hall ng West Rembo ay nakilala naming ang suspect na si MARIANITO LUNA y NAJORDA @ SUGAR, 54 [years] old, single, jobless, and of #74 Blk 03, T Alonzo St., West Rembo, Makati City at pagkatapos ay inimbentaryo namin ang aming narecover sa suspect na si @ SUGAR na dalawang (2) na pirasong plastic sachet na may lamang puting crystalline substance na pinaghihinalaang SHABU ng "SCL" (para sa nabiling ipinagbabawal na droga) at "SCL-1" (para sa narecover na droga sa kanyang posesyon) sa harap ni BRGY. KAGAWAD MANUEL COL-LONG ng Brgy. West Rembo upang maging saksi namin sa aming pag iimbentarvo na isang [requirement] sa RA 9165.
T: Sinasabi mong nag-imbentaryo kayo sa harap ni BRGY. KAGAWAD MANUEL COL-LONG, [a]nu ba ang ginagawa sa pag iimbentaryo ninyo?
S: Ang ginagawa po sa pag iimbentaryo ay minamarkahan po ang mga ebidensyang nakukuha o narecover sa o mga suspek sa pamamagitan po ng paglalagay ng isang masking tape sa nakuhang ebidensya at ito ay minamarkahan ng inisyal ng taong nakabili ng ipinagbabawal [na] droga sa suspek, isinusulat din po namin sa isang "INVENTORY RECEIPT" ang lahat ng aming iniimbentarvo at ito po ay kailangan mawiwitnesan ang [sic] isang elected official o media. 31 (Emphases and underscoring supplied)
The pictures 32 of the inventory also showed only Kag. Col-long as witness. PO1 Bassig echoed PO2 Limbauan's testimony that they called for a barangay official after their buy-bust operation. 33 Furthermore, PO2 Limbauan disclosed during his cross examination that there was no representative from the media or of the NPS, viz.: TIADCc
ATTY. SALUDO:
xxx xxx xxx
Q When you arrived at the barangay, was there any elected barangay official there[sic]?
A None, sir.
ATTY. SALUDO:
Q How long did you have to wait?
WITNESS:
A Not that long, sir because he was fetched by the barangay tanod.
Q Could you give an estimate as to the time?
A Ten to fifteen minutes, sir.
Q You proceeded with the inventory?
A Yes, sir.
Q Was there any representative from the media?
A None, sir.
Q How about a representative of the DOJ?
A None, sir.34
The absence of the required witnesses does not per se render the seized items inadmissible. 35 However, a justifiable reason for such failure or a showing of any genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses under Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 must be adduced. 36 Police officers are ordinarily given sufficient time — beginning from the moment they have received the information about the activities of the accused until the time of his or her arrest — to prepare for a buy-bust operation and, consequently, make the necessary arrangements beforehand knowing fully well that they would have to strictly comply with the chain of custody rule. As such, law enforcement officers are compelled not only to state the reasons for their non-compliance, but must, in fact, also convince the Court that they exerted earnest efforts to comply with the mandated procedure, and that under the given circumstances, their actions were reasonable. 37
Moreover, the saving clause in Section 21 may be invoked only where the prosecution recognized the procedural lapses and, thereafter, explained the cited justifiable grounds, and when the prosecution established that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized had been preserved. 38 The prosecution has the positive duty to demonstrate a valid cause for non-compliance with the chain of custody rule in such a way that during the trial proceedings, it must initiate in acknowledging and justifying any perceived deviations from the requirements of the law. 39 The prosecution must adequately explain such failure to follow the mandated procedure, and must prove the same as a fact in accordance with the rules of evidence. The apprehending officers must clearly state the justifiable ground in their sworn affidavit, coupled with a statement on the steps they took to preserve the integrity of the seized items. 40 The said justifiable ground for non-compliance must be proven as a fact because the Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist. 41
Here, the prosecution failed to discharge its burden. It failed to acknowledge the fact that there was only one witness which is a deviation from the rule. It did not proffer any acceptable reason for the same. PO2 Limbauan's and PO1 Bassig's respective sinumpaang salaysay did not allege their non-compliance with the witness requirement and state a justifiable ground for such non-compliance. PO2 Limbauan admitted that there was no member of the media or representative of the NPS but he did not justify the same. There was also no evidence that the police officers exerted an earnest effort to secure the attendance of the two required witnesses. In fact, it was established that the barangay tanod fetched Kag. Col-long minutes after the operation. As such, this Court cannot rule with certainty that such deviation from the rules was indeed justified. AIDSTE
The Court notes that the trial court's reliance on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty despite the lapse in the procedures undertaken by the officers is fundamentally flawed since the said lapse itself is affirmative proof of irregularity. 42 The presumption of regularity in the performance of duties may only arise when there is a showing that the apprehending officer/team followed the requirements of Section 21 or when the saving clause is successfully triggered. In this case, the evidence of non-compliance with the law overcame and contradicted the presumptions.
The unjustified procedural lapse committed by the apprehending officers weighs against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt against Luna as the integrity and evidentiary value of the items supposedly seized from him have been compromised. As such, the Court is constrained to rule that Luna's acquittal is in order.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated January 31, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08104 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Marianito Luna y Najorda is accordingly ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation.
The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is ORDERED to immediately cause the release of accused-appellant from detention, unless he is being held for some other lawful cause, and to REPORT to this Court compliance herewith within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED."(Perlas-Bernabe,J., on official leave; Hernando, J., Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2846 dated October 6, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 2-32; penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta with Associate Justices Jane Amara C. Lantion and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 61-68; penned by Presiding Judge Edgardo M. Caldona.
3. Id. at 69-70.
4. Id. at 11.
5. Id. at 13.
6. Rollo, p. 3.
7. Id. at 4.
8. Records, p. 34.
9. Rollo, pp. 4-5.
10. Id.
11. Records, pp. 27 and 87.
12. Rollo, p. 6.
13. CA rollo, pp. 63-64.
14. Id. at 67-68.
15. Id. at 65-67.
16. Id. at 69.
17. Rollo, pp. 15-16.
18. Id. at 21.
19. Id. at 31.
20. People v. Morales, 630 Phil. 215, 227-228 (2010).
21. People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 29 (2017).
22. People v. Sipin, 833 Phil. 67, 80 (2018).
23. Id.
24. People v. Martinez, 652 Phil. 347, 369 (2010).
25. Lescano v. People, 778 Phil. 460, 479 (2016).
26. AN ACT TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE ANTI-DRUG CAMPAIGN OF THE GOVERNMENT, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE "COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002." Approved on July 15, 2014.
27. People v. Sagana, 815 Phil. 356, 373 (2017).
28. People v. Umipang, 686 Phil. 1024, 1038 (2012).
29. Limbo v. People, G.R. No. 238299, July 1, 2019.
30. Records, pp. 21 and 82.
31. Id. at 34-35 and 97-98. Exhibit "T."
32. Id. at 29 and 92, Exhibits "P-I" to "P-3."
33. Id. at 39.
34. TSN, September 9, 2015, pp. 8-9.
35. People v. Umipang,supra note 28 at 1052.
36. Id. at 1052-1053.
37. People v. Crispo, 828 Phil. 416, 436 (2018).
38. People v. Andrada, 833 Phil. 999, 1013 (2018).
39. People v. Miranda, 824 Phil. 1042, 1060 (2018).
40. People v. Saragena, 817 Phil. 117, 144 (2017).
41. People v. De Guzman, 630 Phil. 637, 649 (2010).
42. People v. Ramirez, 823 Phil. 1215, 1227 (2018).