SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 201991. September 14, 2020.]
MICHELLE ROGERS y TANDOC, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated14 September 2020which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 201991 (Michelle Rogers y Tandoc v. People of the Philippines). — This Petition for Review on Certiorari assails the January 30, 2012 Decision 1 and May 22, 2012 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04551 affirming the February 15, 2010 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dagupan City, Branch 44, in Criminal Case No. 2007-0198-D finding petitioner Michelle Rogers y Tandoc (Rogers) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5 (Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165) or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Antecedents
Rogers assails her conviction for the Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs on the ground that the chain of custody was broken and the requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 were not followed by the entrapment team.
On October 25, 2006, Police Officer (PO) 2 Mede Dela Cruz (PO2 Dela Cruz) organized a team to conduct a buy-bust operation against Rogers, a suspected drug pusher who had been under surveillance for a month. PO2 Conrado Morga (PO2 Morga) was designated as the poseur buyer and provided with three (3) P100.00 marked bills while PO2 Dela Cruz and PO2 Paquito Claveria (PO2 Claveria) were assigned as back-up members. 4
The buy-bust team proceeded to the target area near a sari-sari store in Barangay Malabago, Calasiao, Pangasinan. Alias Jojo, the police officer's asset, pointed to Rogers for PO2 Morga's reference and then left. As Rogers approached the store, PO2 Morga introduced himself as a buyer and asked, "Mayroon tayo diyan?" to which Rogers answered in the affirmative. 5 PO2 Morga handed over the marked money to Rogers who in turn gave him a transparent plastic sachet. Subsequently, PO2 Morga arrested Rogers with the assistance of the rest of the team members. 6
The police officers brought Rogers, along with the seized item, to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Headquarters in Calasiao, where PO2 Dela Cruz marked the plastic sachet with the initials "MDL." PO2 Claveria then indorsed the sachet along with a request for laboratory examination 7 to the PNP Crime Laboratory. After examination, Police Inspector (P/Insp.) Dennis Lalangan Burguillos (P/Insp. Burguillos) concluded that the specimen in the sachet tested positive for shabu. 8
The defense, on the other hand, alleged that on October 25, 2006, while Rogers was outside a store in Barangay Malabago, Calasiao, Pangasinan, PO2 Morga suddenly grabbed her wrists and instructed her to go with him since a case had been purportedly filed against her. 9 Rogers asked for proof of the charge but PO2 Morga handcuffed her instead. Rogers became hysterical and thereafter, two men approached to assist PO2 Morga in arresting her. Rogers alleged that the men forcibly boarded her into a jeepney and brought her to the police station in Calasiao, Pangasinan. Afterwards, they confined her in a room where she was ordered to sign a document. She refused to sign hence, they detained her. Rogers was only released after her mother arrived. 10
On March 22, 2007, an Information 11 was filed charging Rogers with a violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the accusatory portion of which reads:
That on October 25, 2006, at around 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon in Brgy. Malabago, Calasiao, Pangasinan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and criminally possess, sell and deliver to a poseur buyer one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet of METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (SHABU), a dangerous drug, weighing 0.03 gram, in exchange [for] Three Hundred Pesos (P300.00), Philippine Currency, without lawful authority to do so.
CONTRARY to Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. 12
On her arraignment, Rogers entered a plea of "not guilty." 13
In their Joint Affidavit of Arrest, 14 the police officers stated that they have been conducting surveillance on Rogers for a month and that she was informed of her constitutional rights upon her arrest.
The Initial Laboratory Report 15 dated October 25, 2006 prepared by P/Insp. Burguillos indicated that the seized substance tested positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. This was confirmed by Chemistry Report No. D-176-2006-U 16 dated October 25, 2006.
During his testimony, P/Insp. Burguillos affirmed that PO2 Claveria brought the seized sachet, the contents of which tested positive for shabu. 17 Although there was confusion whether the marking was "MDC" or "MDL," he maintained that he examined the same specimen which was submitted to him for testing by the buy-bust team. 18
PO2 Morga confirmed that he acted as the poseur buyer during the buy-bust operation and that he bought P300.00 worth of shabu from Rogers. 19 Immediately thereafter, PO2 Morga arrested Rogers and brought her to the police station along with the marked money and the confiscated sachet of shabu. Afterwards, PO2 Morga wrote the initials "MDL" 20 on the seized plastic sachet. 21 PO2 Morga further stated that, together with PO2 Claveria, they indorsed the seized sachet to P/Insp. Burguillos of the crime laboratory. 22
PO2 Morga asserted that he met Rogers for the first time during the entrapment operation. 23 Additionally, he claimed that PO2 Dela Cruz and PO2 Claveria coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) concerning the buy-bust operation. 24
On cross-examination, PO2 Morga stated that they performed a month-long surveillance on Rogers to confirm whether she was indeed peddling dangerous drugs; 25 however, they did not conduct a test-buy during the said period. 26 He maintained that it was the asset who initially negotiated with Rogers for the purchase of P300.00 worth of shabu. 27
PO2 Claveria affirmed that he, together with PO2 Dela Cruz, acted as back-up to PO2 Morga, the poseur buyer. 28 He averred that they positioned themselves along the highway while PO2 Morga walked towards the area near the sari-sari store. 29 After the sale was consummated, they assisted PO2 Morga in arresting Rogers then brought her to the police station. 30 Thereafter, PO2 Morga turned over the seized item to PO2 Dela Cruz for marking which was supposed to read as "MDC." 31 PO2 Claveria stated that prior to the entrapment operation, he personally met Rogers twice. 32 Moreover, he believed that PO2 Dela Cruz coordinated with the PDEA. 33 On cross-examination, PO2 Claveria admitted that he did not witness the actual sale of shabu. 34
PO2 Dela Cruz testified that he acted as back-up in the operation and that PO2 Morga and PO2 Claveria were the ones who arrested. Rogers. 35 He likewise admitted that he did not actually witness the sale transaction because of the distance and the steady flow of vehicles plying the street. 36
On the other hand, Rogers asserted that on October 25, 2006, a man, whom she later identified as PO2 Morga, suddenly arrested her. She was surprised when PO2 Morga informed her that a case has been filed against her which prompted her to ask for a document proving the same. When PO2 Morga did not produce any document, she became hysterical. Two men then approached her and one of them grabbed her hand. 37 They boarded her into a jeepney and brought her to the police station. Thereat, they led her to a room where they tried to force her to sign a document but she refused. Afterwards, they transferred her to another room. She was released only after her mother arrived at the police station. 38 Rogers essentially denied the charges against her. 39
During her cross-examination, Rogers stated that she went to the store because she needed change for P500.00. 40 She alleged that although she asked her mother to file a complaint against the police officers for arresting her, the latter did not do so. 41
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:
In its February 15, 2010 Decision, 42 the RTC found Rogers guilty as charged. It held that the prosecution was able to establish that a buy-bust operation was conducted and that the elements constituting the Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs were present in the case. 43 Furthermore, it ruled that Rogers's bare denial cannot overcome the positive testimonies of the police officers and that she was not able to prove that ill motive attended her arrest. 44 The dispositive portion of the RTC's Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused MICHELLE ROGERS y Tandoc GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt [of] Violation of Art. II, Sec. 5 of RA 9165 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 n and is hereby sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine in the amount of Five hundred thousand (P500,000.00) pesos.
With costs against said accused.
SO ORDERED. 45
Aggrieved, Rogers filed a motion for reconsideration 46 maintaining that the prosecution failed to prove that the police officers complied with the mandate of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165; thus, the chain of custody was not preserved. However, her motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC in a Resolution 47 dated April 19, 2010. Discontented, she appealed 48 before the CA.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
The CA, in its assailed January 30, 2012 Decision, 49 affirmed the RTC's ruling finding Rogers guilty of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs. 50 It held that the elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs were established by the prosecution, as PO2 Morga positively identified Rogers as the seller of shabu worth P300.00. 51 It gave credence to the testimonies of the police officers based on the presumption that they performed their duties in a regular manner, especially considering that it was a buy-bust operation. 52
The appellate court found that the chain of custody was not broken since "the prosecution established that after confiscating the plastic sachet from appellant, PO2 Morga brought it to the police station [and] turned [it] over to PO2 Dela Cruz who marked it and prepared the request for laboratory examination. The specimen and request were indorsed by PO2 Claveria to P/Insp. Burguillos who conducted the examination. The Laboratory Report [showed] that the specimen proved positive for the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug." 53 Moreover, the CA held that non-compliance with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 is not fatal as long as there is a justifiable ground and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officers. 54
Relevantly, the CA stated that the failure to take photographs and conduct an inventory of the confiscated items in Rogers's presence, including representatives of the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected official, is not fatal since the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item were preserved. 55 Finally, it confirmed the factual findings of the trial court as to the credibility of witnesses. 56
Rogers asked for a reconsideration 57 but it was denied by the CA in a Resolution 58 dated May 22, 2012. Dismayed, Rogers filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari59 raising the following errors:
I.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN NOT ACQUITTING THE PETITIONER CONSIDERING THE PRONOUNCEMENT IN PEOPLE V. JOEL ANCHETA, G.R. NO. 197371, JUNE 13, 2012 AND PEOPLE V. RELATO, G.R. NO. 173794, JANUARY 18, 2012, WHCH ORDAINED THAT FAILURE TO OBSERVE THE MANDATES OF THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE II, SECTION 21(A) OF THE IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS (IRR) OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165 WARRANT THE EXCULPATION OF THE ACCUSED.
II.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN NOT ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED FOR THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO OFFER ANY JUSTIFIABLE GROUND WHY THE PROCEDURE REQUIRED BY LAW WAS NOT COMPLIED WITH COUPLED WITH LAPSES COMMITTED BY THE LAW ENFORCERS RENDER DOUBTFUL AND INADEQUATE THE CORPUS DELICTI. HENCE, THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. 60
Rogers avers that the directive of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 was not complied with, 61viz.:
1st: [N]o photograph of the seized shabu was taken.
2nd: [T]he buy-bust team did not immediately mark the seized shabu at the scene of the crime and in the presence of Michelle Rogers and witnesses.
3rd: Although there was testimony about the marking of the seized items being made at the police station, the records do not show that the marking was done in the presence of Michelle Rogers or her chosen representative.
4th: [N]o representative of the media and the Department of Justice, or any elected official attended the taking of the physical inventory and to sign the inventory.
5th: There is doubt as to the identity of the specimen as there is a discrepancy in the marking: [I]s it marked with MDC or MDL?, and
6th: No explanation was offered by the law enforcers why they failed to comply with the mandates of the law. 62
Rogers points out that the chain of custody was broken as there is doubt whether the sachet of shabu was marked with "MDC" or "MDL." 63 Since there were evident gaps in the chain of custody casting doubt over the integrity of the evidence, there is no adequate proof of the corpus delicti. 64
Conversely, the People, through the Office of the Solicitor General, maintains that when the identity and evidentiary value of the seized item were preserved, conviction is in order. 65 It contends that while no photographs were taken, the identity of the sachet was duly preserved and established. Although there was a discrepancy regarding the markings on the seized item, it insists that the prosecution witnesses consistently identified the same plastic sachet during the trial. 66 It asserts that the accounts of the police officers corroborate each other; in addition, they are presumed to have regularly performed their duties. 67 Lastly, it insists that all the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs were proven. 68
The Ruling of the Court
There is merit in the Petition.
For a conviction for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 or the Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs to prosper, the following elements must be satisfied: "(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." 69 Simply put, "[t]he delivery of the illicit drugs to the poseur buyer and the receipt of the marked money by the seller successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction." 70 Here, the elements constituting the Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs are present. The testimonies of the police officers established that Rogers sold shabu to PO2 Morga who acted as the poseur buyer. Undeniably, Rogers's receipt of the marked P100.00 bills and the delivery of the plastic sachet of shabu to PO2 Morga consummated the illegal sale of the prohibited drug. There was proof that the transaction occurred and the corpus delicti was presented in court. 71 Moreover, although Rogers stated that she intended to file a case against the police officers, nonetheless, she failed to prove that they were motivated by ill will when they arrested her. 72
However, the Court finds that the members of the buy-bust team did not observe the proper procedure with respect to the custody and disposition of dangerous drugs, otherwise known as the chain of custody rule. Section 21 (1), Article II of RA 9165 (prior to its amendment by RA 10640) 73 provides for the proper procedure since the transaction in this case occurred on October 25, 2006, viz.:
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, surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the persons from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
In line with this, Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 provides:
Section 21. x x x
(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 persons from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: 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;
The aforementioned parameters serve a two-fold purpose: "[f]irst, it protects individuals from unscrupulous members of the police who are out to brandish the law on the innocent for personal gain or otherwise. Second, a faithful compliance [with] Section 21 of [RA] 9165 benefits the police and the entire justice system as it assures the public that the accused was convicted on the strength of uncompromised and unquestionable evidence. It dispels any [doubt] that the case against the accused was merely fabricated by the authorities." 74
Prior to its amendment by RA 10640 on July 15, 2014, Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 required that the marking, inventory and photographing of the seized unlawful items to be performed in the presence of representatives from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official. Yet, in this case, aside from failing to mark, take photographs and conduct inventory of the seized items immediately after apprehension and in the presence of Rogers, the buy-bust team did not secure the attendance of all the necessary witnesses. Worse, the police officers failed to explain why the mandated procedure was not followed and why the presence of the said representatives was not secured. On top of this, the prosecution did not present any document showing that the police officers actually coordinated with the PDEA, contrary to the allegations of PO2 Morga and PO2 Claveria.
The recent case of People v. Lim 75 underscored the importance of the presence of the three necessary witnesses during the marking, physical inventory and taking of photographs of the confiscated items, to wit:
It must be alleged and proved that the presence of the three witnesses 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 [from] the accused or any person/s acting for and in his/her behalf; (3) the elected official(s) 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[d] futile through no fault of the arresting officers, who face[d] 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 enforces from obtaining the presence of the required witnesses even before the offenders could escape. 76
In like manner, recent cases dictate that there should be evidence to show that the prosecution undertook earnest efforts to secure the attendance of the key witnesses in accordance with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. In particular, Ramos v. People77 instructs:
[I]t is well to note that the absence of these required witnesses does not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible. However, a justifiable reason for such failure or a showing of any genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses under Section 21 of RA [No.] 9165 must be adduced. In People v. Umipang, the Court held that the prosecution must show that earnest efforts were employed in contacting the representatives enumerated under the law for a 'sheer statement that representatives were unavailable without so much as an explanation on whether serious attempts were employed to look for other representatives, given the circumstances is to be regarded as a flimsy excuse.' Verily, mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses are unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance. These considerations arise from the fact that 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 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 set procedure prescribed in Section 21 of RA 9165. As such, police officers are compelled not only to state 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.
Relevantly, "[t]he requirement of securing the presence of an elected public official, member of the DOJ, and member of the media is not a mere surplusage that may be dispensed with by any apprehending team for it serves a vital purpose: to protect the accused against the possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drug." 78
The prosecution should explain the non-compliance by the police officers with Section 21 based on justifiable grounds, provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items have been preserved. In other words, the chain of custody in handling the confiscated item should not have been broken.
In this case, the prosecution did not even attempt to explain the absence of all the necessary witnesses during the marking, taking of inventory, and photographing. Unfortunately, there was no effort at all to justify the absence of these witnesses, especially considering that the police officers have sufficient time to plan the buy-bust operation as they even claimed that they had conducted a month-long surveillance prior to the entrapment operation. The police officers did not show that they exerted earnest efforts to secure the presence of the required representatives during the entrapment operation. They have not adequately explained why no representative was present.
The police officers ought to know that "[b]uy busts are planned police operations where the police carefully lay out their strategy in order to arrest those suspected to be involved in illegal drugs. From how they would approach the target and how they would signal to arrest him or her, everything is carefully fleshed out. In addition, it is expected that the police had also considered in their preparation that the procedure or requirements under Section 21, [Article II of RA] 9165 are followed, or that reasonable efforts had been exerted to comply but due to justifiable grounds, compliance is rendered impossible or impractical." 79
To reiterate, there was no justifiable ground advanced by the prosecution to excuse the absence of the said representatives. In fact, their absence was not explained at all. Thus, "[a]bsent any acceptable explanation for the deviation from the procedural requirements of the chain of custody rule, the corpus delicti cannot be deemed preserved." 80 This lapse undeniably casts doubt upon the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated item, and raises the possibility that it may have been compromised while under the custody of the police. Likewise, it is worthy to mention that a "stricter adherence to Section 21 is required where the quantity of illegal drugs is miniscule [as in this case] since it is highly susceptible to planting, tampering, or alteration." 81
To stress, "the presence of the insulating witnesses is not a hollow requirement. It is of primordial importance as it lends another layer of legitimacy to the conduct of buy-bust operation. Coupled with the rule that the marking of the seized drugs be [done] in the presence of the accused, the additional witnesses ensure that [there is] moral certainty that what [were] presented in court [were] the same drugs recovered from suspected drug personalities. If the identity and integrity of the seized drugs [were] questionable at its inception, then, the manner in which they [were] subsequently handled becomes irrelevant as lingering doubt would always follow the corpus delicti." 82
Withal, in sustaining a conviction in criminal cases, proof beyond reasonable doubt is required. 83 Here, given the Court's finding that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item were not preserved, the said quantum of proof was not satisfied. In any case, the confusion regarding the markings on the confiscated item highlighted the haphazard work of the buy-bust team members. In fine, "[t]he evidence of the appellant may be weak and uncorroborated, nevertheless, this cannot be used to advance the cause of the prosecution as its evidence must stand or fall on its own weight and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense." 84 Therefore, the conviction of Rogers should be reversed based on reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is hereby GRANTED. The assailed January 30, 2012 Decision and May 22, 2012 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04551 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Michelle Rogers y Tandoc is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is ORDERED to: (a) cause the immediate release of accused-appellant Michelle Rogers y Tandoc unless she is being held in custody for any other lawful reason; and (b) inform the Court of the action taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
Let entry of judgment be issued.
SO ORDERED." (Baltazar-Padilla, J., on leave.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 38-50; penned by Associate Justice Antonio L. Villamor and concurred in by Associate Justices Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente and Ramon A. Cruz.
2.Id. at 51-52.
3.Id. at 131-136; penned by Presiding Judge Genoveva Coching-Maramba.
4.Id. at 40, 132-133.
5.Id. at 40.
6.Id. at 40-41, 132-133.
7. Records, p. 71.
8.Rollo, pp. 41, 132-134.
9.Id. at 41, 134.
10.Id. at 41-42, 134.
11. Records, pp. 1-2.
12.Id. at 1.
13.Id. at 44, 47.
14.Id. at 28.
15.Id. at 31.
16.Id. at 72.
17. TSN, October 15, 2007, pp. 3, 6.
18.Id. at 8.
19. TSN, November 26, 2007, pp. 3-4, 6.
20. According to PO2 Morga, the marking should be "MDC" instead of "MDL" since these three letters stand for the first letter of the surnames of the members of the buy-bust team, namely, Morga, Dela Cruz, and Claveria; see TSN, November 26, 2007, p. 8.
21. TSN, November 26, 2007, pp. 6-8.
22.Id. at 9.
23.Id. at 6.
24.Id. at 11.
25.Id.
26.Id. at 13.
27.Id. at 16-17.
28. TSN, September 18, 2008, pp. 4-5.
29.Id. at 7.
30.Id. at 8-9.
31.Id. at 10-11; PO2 Claveria asserted that the marking "MDC" stands for "Mede Dela Cruz."
32. TSN, September 18, 2008. p. 5.
33.Id. at 12.
34.Id. at 14.
35. TSN, March 9, 2006, p. 5.
36.Id. at 7-8.
37. TSN, November 9, 2009, pp. 3-4.
38.Id. at 4.
39.Id. at 3.
40.Id. at 5.
41.Id. at 6.
42.Rollo, pp. 131-136.
43.Id. at 134-135.
44.Id. at 135.
45.Id. at 136.
46.Id. at 141-156.
47.Id. at 138-140.
48. CA rollo, pp. 14-16.
49.Rollo, pp. 38-50.
50.Id. at 49-50.
51.Id. at 44.
52.Id. at 45-46.
53.Id. at 47.
54.Id. at 48.
55.Id.
56.Id. at 49.
57.Id. at 165-179.
58.Id. at 51-52.
59.Id. at 11-37.
60.Id. at 19-20.
61.Id. at 20-24.
62.Id. at 24.
63.Id. at 30.
64.Id. at 34.
65.Id. at 201, 203.
66.Id. at 205-210.
67.Id. at 215.
68.Id. at 216-217.
69.People v. Roales, G.R. No. 233656, October 2, 2019, citing People v. Oliva, G.R. No. 234156, January 7, 2019.
70.People v. Angeles, G.R. No. 224223, November 20, 2019, citing People v. Sipin, G.R. No. 224290, June 11, 2018.
71.People v. Angeles, id.
72.People v. Addin, G.R. No. 223682, October 9, 2019, citing People v. Uy, 430 Phil. 516 (2002).
73. AN ACT TO FURTHER 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." n
74.People v. Malabanan, G.R. No. 241950, April 10, 2019.
75. G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.
76.Id. Citations omitted.
77. G.R. No. 233572, July 30, 2018.
78.People v. Tomas, G.R. No. 241631, March 11, 2019, citing People v. Callejo, G.R. No. 227427, June 6, 2018.
79.People v. Jagdon, G.R. No. 234648, March 27, 2019.
80.People v. Tulod, G.R. No. 227993, September 25, 2019.
81.People v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 229352, April 10, 2019.
82.People v. Malabanan, supra note 74.
83. RULES OF COURT, Rule 133, Section 2.
84.People v. Angeles, supra note 70, citing People v. Santos, Jr., 562 Phil. 458, 473 (2007).
n Note from the Publisher: Written as "Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002" in the official document.
n Note from the Publisher: Written as "COMPREHENSIVE DRUGS ACT OF 2002" in the official document.