G.R. No. 205741, July 23, 2014
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. REYMAN ENDAYA Y LAIG, Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
Criminal Case No. 0098-2003
That on or about the 20th day of November, 2002, at about 7:00 o’clock in the evening, at Barangay 2-A, Municipality of Mataasnakahoy, Province of Batangas, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without having been authorized by law, did then and there willfully and unlawfully have in his possession, custody and control eight (8) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets each containing methamphetamine hydrochloride commonly known as “shabu”, having a total weight of 0.32 gram, a dangerous drug.2cralawred
Criminal Case No. 0099-2003
That on or about the 20th day of November, 2002, at about 7:00 o’clock in the evening, at Barangay 2-A, Municipality of Mataasnakahoy, Province of Batangas, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without having been authorized by law, did then and there willfully and unlawfully sell, deliver and give away one (1) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing methamphetamine hydrochloride commonly known as “shabu”, weighing 0.04 gram, a dangerous drug.3chanrobleslaw
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, accused Reyman Endaya y Laig is convicted of the offenses charged in these cases for violation of Section 5 (paragraph 1) and Section 11 (paragraph 3), both of Article II of Republic Act 9165 and is hereby sentenced to suffer:cralawlawlibrary
a) Section 11 – Imprisonment for a period of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to twenty (20) years as maximum and to pay a fine of P300,000.00 and;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
b.) Section 5 – Life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00.28cralawred
x x xchanrobleslaw
The inconsistencies allegedly committed by [SPO4] Benedicto and [PO2] Chavez will not save [appellant] from conviction. To secure a reversal of the lower court’s findings, the inconsistencies should have pertained to the actual buy-bust itself, that crucial moment when [appellant] was caught selling or in possession of shabu, not to peripheral matters. x x x
x x x x
To be sure, the discrepant statements alluded to by [appellant] were too minor to adversely affect the credibility of the witnesses. Those discrepancies did not detract from the established fact of the crimes charged against him. As the High Court held, inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses referring to minor details, and not in actuality touching upon the central fact of the crime, do not impair their credibility.
In view of all the foregoing, this [c]ourt finds that [appellant] failed to overthrow the presumption of regularity accorded the police officers in the performance of their official duty. He utterly failed to prove that in testifying against him, these witnesses were motivated by reasons other than the duty to curb the sale and possession of prohibited drugs and possession of drug paraphernalia. There is no proof of any ill motive or odious intent on the part of the police authorities to impute falsely such a serious crime to [appellant]. Thus, the [c]ourt will not allow the former’s testimony to be overcome by self-serving defenses.
x x x x
This Court likewise finds no merit in [appellant’s] contention that the prosecution failed to establish the corpus delicti of the offense. Testimonies of prosecution witnesses convincingly stated that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved by them. [SPO4] Benedicto testified that he witnessed when their asset handed the shabu (which he bought from appellant) to [PO2] Chavez. Thereafter, he saw [PO2] Chavez put markings on them. [PO2] Chavez also attested that he marked the 1 sachet of shabu sold by [appellant] to their asset as well as the 8 sachets of shabu confiscated from [appellant]. They eventually prepared a request for laboratory examination. The Chemistry Report stated that all the specimens submitted by the apprehending officers which bore the same markings gave positive result to the tests for the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride.
It is thus evident that the identities of the corpus delicti were properly preserved and established by the prosecution. Besides, the integrity of the evidence is presumed to be preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill-will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with. [Appellant], in this case, has the burden to show that the evidence was tampered or meddled with to overcome a presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers and a presumption that public officers properly discharged their duties. Needless to say, [appellant] failed to muster out such burden.
x x x x
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The assailed October 22, 2010 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 12, Lipa City, in Criminal Cases Nos. 0098-2003 and 0099-2003 convicting Reyman Endaya y Laig for violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, is hereby AFFIRMED. No costs.29
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 11 AND 5 OF R.A. NO. 9165 NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROSECUTION’S FAILURE TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN ADMITTING THE RECEIPT FOR PROPERTY SEIZED WHICH THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT WAS FORCED TO SIGN IN VIOLATION OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN ADMITTING THE SACHETS OF SHABU AS EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
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. (Emphasis supplied)
x x x x
[PROSECUTOR] How was that preparation made to conduct a buy-bust operation? [SPO4 BENEDICTO] We contacted our asset or informant so that he will be the one who will act as the buyer from Reyman Endaya. Q: What will be used by your asset in buying shabu from Reyman Endaya? A: We gave him marked money, sir. Q: How much was the marked money given to your asset to be used in the buy-bust operation? A: P500.00, sir. Q: In what denomination? A: Five (5) pieces of P100.00 bills. x x x x Q: And in that buy-bust operation that you conducted x x x, you said that it was conducted around 6:00 o’clock in the evening x x x. Who were involved in this buy-bust operation? A: SPO4 Moriel Benedicto, SPO2 Nestor Babadilla, and PO2 Edwin Chavez. Q: What will be your participation, the three of you? A: We stood as the back-up of the poseur-buyer, sir. Q: And your poseur-buyer, what will be his participation? A: He will be the one to act as the buyer of shabu to [sic] Reyman Endaya, sir. x x x x Q: And after your asset proceeded to that place, where did you position yourselves? A: We hid in a place not far from the place where the asset was positioned. x x x x Q: And when [appellant] approached your asset, what transpired between your asset and Reyman Endaya if anything happened that time? A: They talked for a while and as we could see it, they exchanged something, sir. Q: Do you know what was given by your asset to Reyman Andaya? A: Yes, sir. Q: What was handed by your asset to Reyman Andaya? A: He gave the money, sir. Q: What money? A: The marked money that we gave him, sir. Q: How about Reyman Endaya? Do you know or do you have any inkling as to what he gave to your asset? A: Yes, sir. Q: What was your inkling about what Reyman Endaya gave to your asset? A: The shabu which our asset bought from him, sir. Q: And after this exchange of marked money and the suspected shabu happened between your asset and Reyman Endaya, what was done by your asset if anything was done by him? A: As we have previously arranged, he held his head as a sign that he has already purchased shabu, sir. Q: And after getting or seeing this pre-arranged signal to signify that your asset had already bought shabu from Reyman Endaya, what action did you take? A: We approached them and we introduced ourselves as policemen and we arrested him.34
x x x x
[PROSECUTOR] What happened on that buy-bust operation that you conducted? [SPO2 CHAVEZ] At 7:00 o’ clock in the evening, Reyman Endaya arrived and during that time, our poseur buyer was already positioned and we did not hear their actual conversation but we saw when the poseur buyer handed the marked money to Reyman Endaya and Reyman Endaya in turn handed to our poseur buyer something and on [sic] that point, we saw our poseur buyer giving a signal to us which means that he had already bought the shabu from Reyman Endaya. Q: Where were you when your asset who acted as poseur buyer and Reyman Endaya were [doing] this transaction? A: We were hiding on [sic] a place which was near from [sic] the two, sir. Q: How far were you actually from the two? A: More or less five (5) meters, sir. x x x x Q: And when you saw your asset giving that signal, what did you do? A: We ran towards them and we arrested Reyman Endaya for selling that shabu, sir.35
Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. - 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 possess any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof:cralawlawlibrary
x x x x
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows:cralawlawlibrary
x x x x
(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu", or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy", PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or less than three hundred (300) grams of marijuana.
[PROSECUTOR] And after putting the person of Reyman Endaya under arrest and informing him of the cause of his arrest and his constitutional rights, what else did you do in [sic] the person of Reyman Endaya? [SPO4 BENEDICTO] He was searched by our two companions, sir. x x x x Q: And did you come to know the result of this body search conducted by SPO3 Nestor Babadilla and PO2 Edwin Chavez? A: My companion SPO3 Nestor Babadilla was able to recover the marked money worth P5,000.00 (sic) which Reyman was still holding. Q: What else was recovered from the person of Reyman Endaya if anything else was recovered from him in the course of his body search? A: In the place where we arrested him, those were the only items which we were able to recover from him, sir. Q: Why? After that body search was conducted, did you recover anything else from Reyman Endaya in any other place? A: When we brought him to the office, we recovered eight (8) plastic sachets of shabu in his wallet, sir.37 [PROSECUTOR] How did it come about that you were able to recover eight (8) separate sachets of shabu from the wallet of Reyman Andaya when you were already at the police station? [PO2 CHAVEZ] Upon arrival at the police station, we turned him over to the police investigator and we again searched his body and on [sic] his wallet, we found the eight (8) sachets of shabu, sir.38
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:cralawlawlibrary
(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;chanrobleslaw
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items. (Emphasis supplied)
[PROS. SANDOVAL] Mr[.] witness you said that aside from the one heat sealed transparent plastic sachet which accused Reyman Endaya y Laig sold to your poseur buyer in the evening of November 20, 2002 you also recovered eight (8) other sachets of shabu from him after his arrest if you will be shown these nine (9) plastic sachets of shabu can you identify the same? [SPO4 BENEDICTO] Yes sir. Q: Can you distinguish in [sic] these nine (9) plastic sachets which one was the subject matter of the buy bust operation and which of those was taken from the possession of the accused after his arrest? A: Yes sir Q: How would you distinguish these specimens from each other? A: My companion placed his markings on all the sachets sir. Q: How about the one (1) plastic sachet which your poseur buyer was able to buy from Reyman Endaya has it any distinguishing mark also after his arrest? A: There is a distinguishing mark sir. Q: What was the distinguishing mark? A: The sachet of shabu which was confiscated in [sic] the buy bust operation was marked by burning two ends of the plastic sachet, sir. Q: If you will be shown this [sic] specimen[s] can you identify them? A: Yes sir. Q: x x x will you please look at these specimens Mr. Witness and tell this Honorable Court what relation has the specimens to the eight (8) plastic sachets that were confiscated from accused Reyman Endaya after his arrest? A: These eight (8) sachets of shabu were confiscated when we searched him sir. x x x x Q: How about the plastic sachet which accused Reyman Endaya sold to your buyer in the buy bust operation? A: This sachet which was burned on both two (2) corners sir.49 (Emphasis supplied)
[PROSECUTOR] When you returned to the police station after conducting the buy-bust operation, do you know the whereabouts of that thing which was handed by Reyman Endaya to your poseur buyer? [PO2 CHAVEZ] Yes, sir. Q: Where was it? A: It is in my possession, sir. Q: When did you take custody of that? A: When we arrested Reyman Endaya at the place of the incident, he handed it to me, sir. Q: Who handed that thing to you? A: The poseur buyer, sir. Q: What is that thing? A: The item which he was able to buy, the shabu, sir. x x x x Q: How about the sachet of shabu which your asset was able to buy from Reyman Endaya and this sachet of shabu which was handed to you at the place of the buy-bust operation. Can you identify that? A: Yes, sir. Q: How about the other eight (8) sachets which you recovered from the wallet of Reyman Endaya at the police station. Can you identify those eight (8) sachets? A: Yes, sir. x x x x Q: Can you tell the Court which one of these nine (9) sachets was the one bought by the poseur buyer from Reyman Endaya? A: This one, sir. (Witness pointing to the sachet of shabu which was previously marked as Exhibit H.) Q: Why are you sure that this is the one that was bought by your poseur buyer from Reyman Endaya? A: I marked it and I burned a portion of the plastic sachet to distinguish this specimen from the other sachets of shabu which were confiscated from them [sic], sir. Q: Which is the burned portion in this sachet, Mr. Witness? A: Here, sir. (Witness pointing to the burned corner of the plastic sachet.) x x x x Q: How about the eight (8) sachets of shabu that were recovered by you from the wallet of Reyman Endaya when you were already at the police station. Can you recognize those eight (8) sachets of shabu? A: Yes, sir. Q: I am showing to you these eight (8) sachets of shabu previously marked as Exhibits “I,” “J,” “K,” “L,” “M,” “N,” “O” and “P” during the testimony of SPO4 Muriel Benedicto. What relation has those eight (8) sachets of shabu to those that you recovered from the wallet of Reyman Endaya? A: Those are the shabu which I was able to confiscate from his wallet. Q: Why do you say so? A: Because of my initials, sir. (Witness pointing to the initials which appear to be a figure “8” on the eight (8) sachets of shabu. Q: In this sachet of shabu which your asset was able to buy from Reyman Endaya, do you have any marking also here aside from the burned corner of the plastic sachet? A: Yes, sir. Q: What is that? A: Here, sir. (Witness pointing to the marking which appears to be a figure “8”.)50 (Emphasis supplied)
x x x the evidentiary value of the “Receipt of Property Seized” in the present circumstances is irrelevant in light of the ample evidence proving [appellant’s] guilt beyond reasonable doubt. As [w]e have earlier stated, the prosecution was able to prove that a valid buy-bust operation was conducted to entrap [appellant]. The testimonies of the arresting police officers clearly established [the illegal possession] and that the sale of shabu by [appellant] was consummated. The corpus delicti, which is the shabu, [were] presented in court and confirmed by the other members of the buy-bust team and they have acknowledged that they were the same drugs subject of that particular buy-bust operation [and subsequent body search on [appellant].55cralawred
Sachets of shabu not fruits of poisonous tree; hence, admissible in evidence against appellantchanrobleslaw
Sec 5. Arrest without warrant, when lawful – A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:cralawlawlibrary
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; andChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.chanrobleslaw
Because [appellant] had been caught in flagrante delicto by the apprehending police officers, they, as the arresting officers were duty-bound to apprehend the culprit immediately and to search him for anything that may be used as proof of the commission of the crime. The search, being an incident of a lawful arrest, needed no warrant for its validity.58chanrobleslaw
1 Rollo, pp. 2-23; Penned by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante with Associate Justices Michael P. Elbinias and Rodil V. Zalameda concurring.
2 Records of Criminal Case No. 0098-2003, p. 1.
3 Records of Criminal Case No. 0099-2003, p. 1.
4 TSN, 3 September 2003, pp. 5-6; Testimony of SPO4 Benedicto.
5 Id. at 8.
6 Records of Criminal Case No. 0098-2003, p. 301; Decision of the RTC.
8 TSN, 3 September 2003, pp. 10-11; Testimony of SPO4 Benedicto and TSN, 1 September 2004, p. 7; Testimony of PO2 Chavez.
9 Id. at 11-12.
10 TSN, 1 September 2004, p. 8; Testimony of PO2 Chavez.
11 TSN, 3 September 2003, pp. 12-13; Testimony of SPO4 Benedicto and TSN, 1 September 2004, p. 9; Testimony of PO2 Chavez.
12 Id. at 14.
13 Id. at 13.
14 Id. at 14. See also TSN, 1 September 2004, pp. 9-10 and 19; Testimony of PO2 Chavez.
15 TSN, 1 September 2004, pp. 17-20; Testimony of PO2 Chavez.
16 TSN, 3 September 2003, pp. 14-17; Testimony of SPO4 Benedicto.
17 TSN, 14 January 2004, pp. 2-4; Testimony of SPO4 Benedicto, pp. 2-4. See also Exhibits “Q” and “R,”; Records of Criminal Case No. 0098-2003, pp. 245 and 246.
18 Records of Criminal Case No. 0098-2003, p. 249; Exhibit “T-1.”
19 Id. at 248; Exhibit “T.”
20 Id. at 303; Decision of the RTC.
21 TSN, 27, July 2009, pp. 13-14; Testimony of Appellant.
22 Records of Criminal Case No. 0098-2003, p. 303; Decision of the RTC.
24 TSN, 27, July 2009, p. 18; Testimony of Appellant.
25 Records of Criminal Case No. 0098-2003, p. 304, Decision of the RTC.
27 Id. at 298-306.
28 Id. at 305.
29Rollo, pp. 11-22; Decision of the CA.
30 Id. at 32-34.
31 Id. at 36-39.
32People v. Bautista, G.R. No. 177320, 22 February 2012, 666 SCRA 518, 529-530 citing People v. Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, 28 July 2008, 560 SCRA 430, 449; People v. Del Monte, G.R. No. 179940, 23 April 2008, 552 SCRA 627, 637-638; and People v. Santiago, G.R. No. 175326, 28 November 2007, 539 SCRA 198, 212.
33 People v. Llanita, G.R. No. 189817, 3 October 2012, 682 SCRA 288, 299 citing People v. Unisa, G.R. No. 185721, 28 September 2011, 658 SCRA 305, 324-325 further citing People v. Gaspar, G.R. No. 192816, 6 July 2011, 653 SCRA 673, 686.
34 TSN, 3 September 2003, pp. 6-11; Testimony of SPO4 Benedicto.
35 TSN, 1 September 2004, pp. 7-8; Testimony of PO2 Chavez.
36People v. Soriano, G.R. No. 189843, 20 March 2013, 694 SCRA 168, 177 citing People v. Bautista, G.R. No. 177320, 22 February 2012, 666 SCRA 518, 529.
37 TSN, 3 September 2003, pp. 12-13; Testimony of SPO4 Benedicto.
38 TSN, 1 September 2004, p. 10; Testimony of PO2 Chavez.
39People v. Angkob, G.R. No. 191062, 19 September 2012, 681 SCRA 414, 424 citing People v. Alivio, G.R. No. 177771, 30 May 2011, 649 SCRA 318, 330.
40 People v. Oniza, G.R. No. 202709, 3 July 2013.
41 Records of Criminal Case No. 0098-2003, p. 8; Exhibit “A.”
42 Id. at 245; Exhibit “R.”
43 Id. at 248; Exhibit “T.”
44Marquez v. People, G.R. No. 197207, 13 March 2013, 693 SCRA 468, 475.
45People v. Bara, G.R. No. 184808, 14 November 2011, 660 SCRA 38, 45 citing People v. Domado, G.R. No. 172971, 16 June 2010, 621 SCRA 73, 85 and People v. Teodoro, G.R. No. 185164, 22 June 2009, 590 SCRA 494, 507 further citing People v. Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, July 28, 2008, 560 SCRA 430, 445-446, People v. Del Monte, G.R. No. 179940, 23 April 2008, 552 SCRA, 627, 636, and People v. Pringas, G.R. No. 175928, 31 August 2007, 531 SCRA 828, 842-843.
46People v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 189327, 29 February 2012, 667 SCRA 357, 368 citing Asiatico v. People, G.R. No. 195005, 12 September 2011, 657 SCRA 443, People v. Campomanes, G.R. No. 187741, 9 August 2010, 627 SCRA 494, 507, and People v. Concepcion, G.R. No. 178876, 27 June 2008, 556 SCRA 421, 436.
47 G.R. No. 186390, 2 October 2009, 602 SCRA 783, 795.
48People v. Cardenas, G.R. No. 190342, 21 March 2012, 668 SCRA 827, 835 citing People v. Salonga, id.
49 TSN, 12 November 2003, pp. 2-4; Additional direct testimony of SPO4 Benedicto.
50 TSN, 1 September 2004, pp. 15-20; Testimony of PO2 Chavez.
51People v. Cardenas, supra note 48, p. 842.
52People v. Mendoza, supra, note 46, p. 369 citing People v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 184804, 18 June 2009, 589 SCRA 625, 647.
53People v. Macabalang, 538 Phil. 136, 162 (2006) citing Juarez v. People, 390 Phil. 805, 813 (2000) further citing People v. Lacbanes, 336 Phil. 933, 942 (1997); People v. Bandin, G.R. No. 104494, 10 September 1993, 226 SCRA 299, 303; People v. Mirantes, G.R. No. 92706, 21 May 1992, 209 SCRA 179, 186; People v. Mauyao, G.R. No. 84525, 6 Aril 1992, 207 SCRA 732, 740; People v. De Las Marinas, G.R. No. 87215, 30 April 1991, 196 SCRA 504, 510; People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 86172, 4 March 1991, 194 SCRA 601, 605; People v. Castro, G.R. No. 106583, 19 June 1997, 274 SCRA 115, 122; and People v. Morico, 316 Phil. 270, 277 (1995).
55Rollo, pp. 18-19; Decision of the CA.
56People v. Mariano, G.R. No. 191193, 14 November 2012, 685 SCRA 592, 606.
57Ambre v. People, G.R. No. 191532, 15 August 2012, 678 SCRA 552, 562 citing People v. Chua, 444 Phil. 757, 770 (2003).
58 Rollo, p. 20; Decision of the CA.
59 “An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of the Death Penalty in the Philippines,” approved by President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo on 24 June 2006.
60People v. Padua, G.R. No. 174097, 21 July 2010, 625 SCRA 220, 239.
61 Section 1, R.A. No. 4103.
62People v. Padua, supra note 60 at 239-240.