SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 205614, July 26, 2017
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAIME SEGUNDO Y IGLESIAS, Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
LEONEN, J.:
Although the miniscule quantity of confiscated illicit drugs is by itself not a reason for acquittal, this instance accentuates the importance of conformity to Section 211 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
This is an appeal2 filed by Jaime Segundo y Iglesias (Segundo) from the June 26, 2012 Decision3 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04377.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the Regional Trial Court's ruling4 that Segundo was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of sale of dangerous drugs or of violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165.5
On July 8, 2001, an Information6 for violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, docketed as Criminal Case No. MC-03-7134-D,7 was filed before Branch 213, Regional Trial Court, Mandaluyong City against Segundo.8
The undersigned Associate Prosecution Atty. II accuses JAIME SEGUNDO of the crime of VIOLATION OF SECTION 5, ARTICLE II OF THE REPUBLIC ACT 9165, committed in the manner herein narrated, as follows:That on or about the 6th day of July 2003, in the City of Mandaluyong, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell to a poseur-buyer, PO1 Cesar Claveron, (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with markings "JSI-1" containing 0.03 gram of white crystalline substance, which was found positive to the test for Methyamphetamine [sic] Hydrochloride, commonly known as "shabu", a [prohibited] drug for the amount of two (2) pieces of One Hundred Pesos with serial no. SN HZ558445 and BT254391, without the corresponding license and prescription in violation of the above[-]cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.9
Criminal Case No. MC-03-7135-D
The undersigned Associate Prosecution Atty. II accuses DOMINADOR GUBATO y IBUHO of the crime of VIOLATION OF SECTION 11, ARTICLE II OF THE REPUBLIC ACT 9165, committed in the manner herein narrated, as follows:That on or about the 6th day of July 2003, in the City of Mandaluyong, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess or otherwise use any dangerous drug, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and knowingly have in his possession, custody and control two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with markings "JSI-1" containing 0.03 grams and 0.30 grams or a total of 0.33 grams of white crystalline substance, which was found positive to the test for Methylamphetamine [sic] Hydrochloride, commonly known as "shabu", and one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with markings "JSI-3" containing 2.27 grams of dried suspected Marijuana fruiting tops, without the corresponding license and prescription.
CONTRARY TO LAW.14
Criminal Case No. MC-03-7136-D
The undersigned Associate Prosecution Atty. II accuses DOMINADOR GUBATO y IBUHO of the crime of VIOLATION OF SECTION 12 IN RELATION TO SECTION 14, ARTICLE II OF THE REPUBLIC ACT 9165, committed in the manner herein narrated, as follows:That on or about the 6th day of July 2003, in the City of Mandaluyong, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and knowingly possess and have in his control one (1) strip aluminium foil with markings "JSI-7" containing traces of white crystalline substance and one (1) improvised glass tooter with markings "JSI-4" containing traces of white crystalline substance, all equipments and other paraphernalia, which are fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering or inducing a dangerous drug into the body, a violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.15 (Emphasis in the original)
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered, viz:
a) in Criminal Case No. MC-03-7134-D, accused JAIME SEGUNDO y IGLESIAS is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 or for sale of dangerous drugs. As a consequence thereof, accused JAIME SEGUNDO y IGLESIAS is sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay the fine of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P 500,000.00); b) in Criminal Case No. MC-03-7135-D, accused DOMINADOR GUBATO y IBUHO is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 or for illegal possession [of] dangerous drugs. Accused DOMINADOR GUBATO y IBUHO is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment from TWELVE (12) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY, as minimum, to FIFTEEN (15) YEARS, as maximum, and to pay the fine of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P 300,000.00); and c) in Criminal Case No. MC-03-7136-D, accused DOMINADOR GUBATO y IBUHO is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 12 in relation to Section 14, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 or for illegal drug paraphernalia. Accused DOMINADOR GUBATO y IBUHO is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment from SIX (6) MONTHS AND ONE (1) DAY, as minimum, to FOUR (4) YEARS, as maximum, and to pay the fine of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P 20,000.00).
All the pieces of evidence confiscated are forfeited in favor of the government to be disposed of in accordance with law.
The period of detention of accused, Jaime Segundo y Iglesias, at the Mandaluyong City Jail is hereby credited in his favor.
Finally, considering that accused DOMINADOR GUBATO y IBUHO is at-large, issue an ALIAS WARRANT for his immediate arrest to serve the sentence imposed upon him in Criminal Case Nos. MC-03-7135-D and MC-03-7136-D.
SO ORDERED.73 (Emphasis in the original)
- PO2 Claveron testified that PO3 Occeña was the one who faxed the pre-coordination form to the PDEA. PO3 Occeña, however, did not confirm the same, and instead relayed that it was PO3 Victor Santos who faxed the said form.
- In their joint affidavit, the police officers stated that when they arrived at the target area, the accused-appellant was seen waiting for customers. PO1 Claveron, however, testified that the accused- appellant was just standing along the alley.
- PO1 Claveron stated that it was PO3 Occeña who received the information from the confidential informant about the selling of prohibited drugs in Talumpong Street, Mandaluyong. PO2 Yumul, however, relayed that it was POS Adriano who received the said information.
- PO1 Claveron narrated that after Jaime [Segundo] and Dominador [Gubato] were arrested, they were brought to the Mandaluyong Medical Center for medical examination. PO2 Yumul, however, declared that the duo was brought to their office to file the necessary charges.
- PO1 Claveron admitted that the recovered items were not inventoried so as to avoid trouble in the area. PO2 Yumul, however, testified that he was the one who inventoried the said items.
- PO3 Occeña declared that PO2 Yumul placed the markings on the seized items. PO2 Yumul, however, did not categorically state he was the one who placed the markings.
- SPO1 Ruperto Balzamo97 admitted that no photographs were taken on the confiscated items. PO2 Yumul, however, recalled that pictures were taken, but they could no longer be found.98 (Citations omitted)
(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.119
b. "Chain of custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment at each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition[.]
A unique characteristic of narcotic substances is that they are not readily identifiable as in fact they are subject to scientific analysis to determine their composition and nature. The Court cannot reluctantly close its eyes to the likelihood, or at least the possibility, that at any of the links in the chain of custody over the same there could have been tampering, alteration or substitution of substances from other cases — by accident or otherwise — in which similar evidence was seized or in which similar evidence was submitted for laboratory testing. Hence, in authenticating the same, a standard more stringent than that applied to cases involving objects which are readily identifiable must be applied, a more exacting standard that entails a chain of custody of the item with sufficient completeness if only to render it improbable that the original item has either been exchanged with another or been contaminated or tampered with.131 (Emphasis provided)
[B]y the very nature of anti-narcotics operations, the need for entrapment procedures, the use of shady characters as informants, the ease with which sticks of marijuana or grams of heroin can be planted in pockets or hands of unsuspecting provincial hicks, and the secrecy that inevitably shrouds all drug deals, the possibility of abuse is great.138 (Emphasis provided)
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[.] (Emphasis supplied)
The concern with narrowing the window of opportunity for tampering with evidence found legislative expression in Section 21 (1) of RA 9165 on the inventory of seized dangerous drugs and paraphernalia by putting in place a three-tiered requirement on the time, witnesses, and proof of inventory by imposing on the apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs the duty to "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. "152 (Emphasis provided)
[T]the above-named accused, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell to a poseur-buyer, PO1 Cesar Claveron, one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with markings "JS1-1" containing 0.03 gram of white crystalline substance, which was found positive to the test for Methylamphetamine [sic] Hydrochloride, commonly known as "shabu[.]"159 (Emphasis provided)
[T]he above-named accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess or otherwise use any dangerous drug, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and knowingly have in his possession, custody and control two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with markings "JSI-1" containing 0.03 grams and 0.30 grams or a total of 0.33 grams of white crystalline substance, which was found positive to the test for Methylamphetamine [sic] Hydrochloride, commonly known as "shabu[.]"160 (Emphasis provided)
Crucial in proving chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or other related items immediately after they are seized from the accused. Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link, thus it is vital that the seized contraband[s] are immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. The marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of criminal proceedings, obviating switching, "planting", or contamination of evidenced.161 (Emphasis provided)
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 —
. . . .
(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 Ions, 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 provided)
It is lamentable that while our dockets are clogged with prosecutions under Republic Act No. 9165 involving small-time drug users and retailers, we are seriously short of prosecutions involving the proverbial "big fish." We are swamped with cases involving small fry who have been arrested for miniscule amounts. While they are certainly a bane to our society, small retailers are but low-lying fruits in an exceedingly vast network of drug cartels. Both law enforcers and prosecutors should realize that the more effective and efficient strategy is to focus resources more on the source and true leadership of these nefarious organizations. Otherwise, all these executive and judicial resources expended to attempt to convict an accused for 0.05 gram of shabu under doubtful custodial arrangements will hardly make a dent in the overall picture. It might in fact be distracting our law enforcers from their more challenging task: to uproot the causes of this drug menace. We stand ready to assess cases involving greater amounts of drugs and the leadership of these cartels.185
Endnotes:
1People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78, 93(2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
2CA rollo, pp. 150-151.
3Rollo, pp. 2-14. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao and concurred in by Associate Justices Michael P. Elbinias and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela of the Fifteenth Division of the Court of Appeals, Manila.
4 CA rollo, pp. 13-35. The Decision, promulgated on February 25, 2010, was penned by Judge Carlos A. Valenzuela of Branch 213, Regional Trial Court, Mandaluyong City.
5 Rep. Act No. 9165, sec. 5, par. 1 provides:
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.
6 CA rollo, pp. 11-12. The Information was filed by Associate Prosecution Atty. II Regina T. Figura-
Tronco.
7 Id. at 13.
8 Id. at 11.
9 Id.
10 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:
. . .
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows:
. . .11 Section 12. Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs. — The penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and a fine ranging from Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) to Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess or have under his/her control any equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body: Provided, That in the case of medical practitioners and various professionals who are required to carry such equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia in the practice of their profession, the Board shall prescribe the necessary implementing guidelines thereof.
(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. (Emphasis supplied)
The possession of such equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia fit or intended for any of the purposes enumerated in the preceding paragraph shall be prima facie evidence that the possessor has smoked, consumed, administered to himself/herself, injected, ingested or used a dangerous drug and shall be presumed to have violated Section 15 of this Act.
12 Section 14. Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social Gatherings or Meetings. — The maximum penalty provided for in Section 12 of this Act shall be imposed upon any person, who shall possess or have under his/her control any equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body, during parties, social gatherings or meetings, or in the proximate company of at least two (2) persons.
13Rollo, pp. 4-5, CA Decision.
14 Id.
15 Id. at 5.
16 Id.
17CA rollo, p. 16.
18Rollo, p. 5.
19 Id.
20 Id. at 6. Claveron stated 1:00 p.m. while Occeña claimed it was at 12:30 p.m. See CA rollo, p. 19 and 25, respectively.
21 The date appearing on p. 22 of the RTC Decision was June 6, 2003 however it should be July 6, 2003 pursuant to the Information attached.
22Rollo, p. 6. Claveron testified that it was Occeña who received the tip while Occeña stated that it was Yumul. See CA rollo, p. 19 and 25, respectively.
23 CA rollo, p. 19.
24 Id. at 22.
25Rollo, p. 6. The complete names of the other police officers are not mentioned in any of the documents.
26 Id.
27 CA rollo, p. 19.
28Rollo, p. 6.
29 CA rollo, p. 23.
30Rollo, p. 6.
31 Id.
32 Id.
33 Id.
34 CA rollo, p. 23.
35Rollo, p. 6.
36 Id.
37 Id. PO1 Occeña claimed it was shabu while PO2 Yumul held that it was marijuana. See CA rollo, p. 26 and 23, respectively.
38 CA rollo, p. 23.
39 Id. and 20.
40 PO1 Occeña stated that the pieces of evidence collected were "on top of the table" while PO2 Yumul attested that they were "scattered on the floor." See CA rollo, p. 26 and 23, respectively.
41 CA rollo, p. 20.
42 Id. at 26.
43 Id.
44 Id.
45 Id.
46Rollo, p. 6 and CA rollo, p. 20.
47 CA rollo, p. 23.
48 Id. at 24.
49 Id. at 20.
50 Id. The substance was misspelled as "methylamphetamine hydrochloride."
51 Id.
52 Id. at 21.
53 Id. at 25. The RTC Decision reported June 6, 2003. However, it should be July 6, 2003, which was the date appearing on the Information against Segundo.
54 Id. at 27.
55 Id. at 21.
56 Id. at 22.
57 Id.
58 Id. at 18.
59 Id. at 19.
60 Id.
61 Id. at 27.
62Rollo, p. 7.
63 Id.
64 Id.
65 CA Rollo, p. 27.
66 Id.
67 Id.
68 Id. at 13-35.
69 Id. at 34.
70 Id. at 32.
71 Id.
72 Id.
73 Id. at 34-35.
74Rollo, p. 7.
75 Id. at 2-14.
76 Id. at 14.
77 Id. at 10.
78 Id.
79 Id.
80 Id. at 15-16.
81 Id. at 1.
82 Id. at 18.
83CA Rollo, pp. 150-151.
84 Rollo, p. 31.
85 Id. at 23-24.
86 Id. at 27-28.
87CA Rollo, pp. 49-69, Brief for the Accused-Appellant.
88 Id. at 58.
89 Id.
90 Id.
91 Id.
92 Id.
93 Id.
94 Id.
95 Id. at 59.
96 Id. at 63.
97 Balzamo also spelled as Balsamo. See CA rollo, p. 18, RTC Decision.
98 CA rollo, pp. 61-63.
99 Id. at 64.
100 Id.
101 Id.
102 Id. at 67.
103 Id.
104 Id.
105 Id. at 109-127, Brief for the Appellee.
106 Id. at 120.
107 Id. at 122.
108 Id. at 123.
109 Id. at 124.
110 Id.
111 Id.
112 Id.
113People v. Garcia y Ruiz, 599 Phil. 416, 426 (2009) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
114People v. Sanchez y Espiritu,590 Phil. 214, 230 (2008) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
115People v. Garcia y Ruiz, 599 Phil. 416, 426 (2009) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
116People v. Sanchez y Espiritu, 590 Phil. 214, 230 (2008) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
117People v. Garcia y Ruiz, 599 Phil. 416, 426 (2009) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
118 Id.
119People v. Pagaduan y Tamayo, 641 Phil. 432, 442-443 (2010) [Per J. Brion, Third Division].
120 Id.
121 Id. at 447.
122 Id.
123 Id.
124People v. Kamad y Ambing, 624 Phil. 289, 300 (2010) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
125 Id.
126People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 226 (2012) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].
127 Guidelines on the Custody and Disposition of Seized Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, and Laboratory Equipment (2002).
128Lopez v. People, 725 Phil. 499, 507 (2014) [Per J. Perez, Second Division].
129 Id.
130 576 Phil. 576 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
131 Id. at 588-589.
132People v. Garcia y Ruiz, 599 Phil. 416, 426 (2009) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
133Rollo, p. 6.
134People v. Garcia y Ruiz, 599 Phil. 416, 426-427 (2009) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
135 Id.
136 Id.
137 401 Phil. 259 (2000) [Per J. Melo, Third Division].
138 Id. at 273.
139People v. Garcia y Ruiz, 599 Phil. 416, 427 (2009) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
140 Id.
141 Id.
142 Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act (2002).
143 This was amended by Republic Act No. 10640 (2013) which provides:
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 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 persons 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.
The Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 10640 was issued on May 28, 2015 and was further amended on August 3, 2016.
144People v. Morales y Midarasa, 630 Phil. 215, 230 (2010) [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division].
145 CA rollo, p. 26.
146 Id. at 25.
147 Id. at 27.
148 Id. at 19.
149 Id. at 25.
150People v. Umipang y Abdul, 686 Phil. 1024, 1038 (2012) [Per CJ. Sereno, Second Division].
151 Id.
152 Id. at 1039.
153 Id. at 1050.
154 Id. at 1053.
155Lescano y Carreon v. People, G.R. No. 214490, January 13, 2016, Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
156 Id. at 14.
157 Id. at 12.
158 CA rollo, p. 59.
159Rollo, p. 4.
160 Id. at 4-5.
161People v. Umipang y Abdul, 686 Phil. 1024, 1049 (2012) [Per C.J. Sereno, Second Division].
162 CA rollo, p. 59.
163People v. Umipang y Abdul, 686 Phil. 1024, 1054 (2012) [Per C.J. Sereno, Second Division].
164 CA rollo, p. 19.
165 Id. at 25.
166 Id.
167 Id. at 20.
168 Id. at 23.
169 Id. at 23.
170 Id. at 26.
171People v. Pagaduan y Tamayo, 641 Phil. 432, 446 (2010) [Per J. Brion, Third Division].
172People v. Jaafar y Tambuyong, G.R. No. 219829, January 18, 2017, 8 [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
173 Id.
174People v. Pagaduan y Tamayo, 641 Phil. 432, 447 (2010) [Per J. Brion, Third Division].
175 Id.
176 Id.
177People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 238 (2015) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].
178 Id.
179 Id.
180Lescano y Carreon v. People, G.R. No. 214490, January 13, 2016, 14 [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].br />
181People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78, 81 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
182 Id.
183 Id. at 93.
184 Id. at 100.
185 Id.