SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 228890, April 18, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BASHER TOMAWIS Y ALI, Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
CAGUIOA, J.:
In our criminal justice system, the overriding consideration is not whether the court doubts the innocence of the accused but whether it entertains a reasonable doubt as to his guilt.1The role of the Court in the fight against the illegal drug menace is to ensure that the guilty is convicted and that the appropriate penalty is imposed. In the discharge of this task, the Court must be mindful that the rights of the individual must, at all times, be safeguarded. As Blackstone's ratio goes, it is better that 100 guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should suffer.
That, on August 21, 2008 at around 6:30 P.M. at Alabang, Muntinlupa, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without having been lawfully authorized, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sold, traded and delivered to a PDEA agent a methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as "shabu", a dangerous drug, with a net weight of 12.74 grams as evidenced by Chemistry Report Number DD-153-08 in violation of the aforecited law.Upon his arraignment, Tomawis pleaded not guilty.9 During the pretrial conference, the following facts were stipulated upon: (1) the identity of the accused and jurisdiction of the RTC over his person; (2) the qualification of the forensic chemist who conducted the drug test; (3) the sample examined by the forensic chemist tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride with a weight of 12.7402 grams; and (4) the sample was delivered by Intelligence Officer 1 (IO1) Mabel Alejandro (IO1 Alejandro).10
CONTRARY TO LAW.8
Alejandro testified that a walk-in confidential informant appeared in their office and reported that a certain alias Salim was engaged in illegal drug activities and operated in Muntinlupa, Alabang. She called her team leader and an anti-buy (sic) bust operation was coordinated. On August 21, 2008, their team leader conducted a briefing on the buy-bust operation. Alejandro was assigned as the poseur buyer and was given two genuine five hundred peso bills which she marked with her initials MCA as buy bust money. The two five hundred peso bills were placed on top of boodle money, folded and tied together and placed in a white envelope.Version of the Defense
Thereafter, they went to Metropolis [Starmall], Alabang to meet with alias Salim. The confidential informant introduced Alejandro to alias Salim and she told him that she wanted to buy shabu. Alias Salim, who was later identified as Tomawis, said that he wanted to see the money first so she showed him the money. He told her that he will get the shabu somewhere and will meet her in the food court. After ten to fifteen minutes, Tomawis returned and they simultaneously exchanged the money for the shabu. After getting the shabu, Alejandro removed her jacket which was their pre-arranged signal. Immediate back up came to arrest Tomawis.
A commotion occurred during the arrest because bystanders inside the food court wanted to help Tomawis who shouted "Tulungan niyo ako papatayin nila ako." They were not able to put markings on the evidence in the vicinity because of the commotion. After Tomawis was arrested, he was read of (sic) his constitutional rights and brought together with the evidence to Brgy. Pinyahan, Quezon City.
Upon reaching Brgy. Pinyahan, they immediately conducted the inventory which was done before the barangay officials of the said barangay. Alejandro handed the seized item to Alfonso Romano who was the inventory officer, but she was present during the inventory process.
Lacap corroborated the testimony of Alejandro. x x x
[Burce] testified that he was a kagawad of Brgy. Pinyahan, Quezon City and that he was called to be present during the inventory of evidence acquired from a buy bust operation. When he reached the office, the confiscated items were placed on top of the table. They asked Tomawis if the items were recovered from him, to which he assented to. The same was corroborated by Gaffud.11
For the defense, Tomawis testified that he was with his mother in Starmall-Alabang when they were accosted by two men. One of them wrung his neck and he could not breathe. His mother tried to help him but was unable to do so. When he was trying to get away from the man holding him, the other man punched his stomach and grabbed his cellular phone. A seller in Starmall-Alabang, who knew him, tried to help him but was unable to do so because the two men brought out their guns. He was brought out to the parking lot and into a vehicle where his hands were handcuffed and his wallet containing P13,500.00 was taken.The Ruling of the RTC
There were six men in the vehicle, none of which he knew. The van stopped in front of the mall, and a man peeped inside and said "bro, hindi yan iyong subject." One of them inside the van laughed and replied "pare-parehas lang ang mga muslim." They stopped by a toll gate where two policemen carrying guns arrived. One of them said "pare, ibaba mo na muna yan kausapin mo." The men got out and talked for a few minutes and when they returned, said, "pare, panindigan na lang natin na yan iyong subject."
Tomawis was told that in exchange of his money, he will be released. When he asked what his violation was, they answered that it was because he resisted.
He later found out that he was brought to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Office where he was again punched in the stomach. He was told to call his relatives so he called his mother. He was brought to Brgy. Pinyahan where he was ordered to point to the money and something wrapped in plastic. He did not complain about the illegal arrest and taking of his wallet to the barangay officials because he was afraid. He was photographed and then brought back to the PDEA Office.
In the PDEA Office, his wife and mother told him that he will be charged with an illegal drug related case. He denied the allegations and said that he was being falsely charged because the PDEA officers knew he was selling cellular phones inside the mall. He cannot think of any other motive why the PDEA officers would file a case against him. His urine was tested and yielded a negative result. Tomawis's mother corroborated his testimony.12
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:Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 (IRR) filled in the details as to place of inventory and added a saving clause in case of non-compliance with the requirements under justifiable grounds, thus:
(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[.]
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:Parsed, the above provisions impose the following requirements in the manner of handling and inventory, time, witnesses, and of place after the arrest of the accused and seizure of the dangerous drugs:
(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 personls 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)
3. The conduct of the physical inventory and photograph shall be done at the:
- the accused or his representative or counsel;
- a representative from the media;
- a representative from the DOJ; and
- any elected public official.
All the above requirements must be complied with for a successful prosecution for the crime of illegal sale of drugs under Section 5 of RA 9165. Any deviation in the mandatory procedure must be satisfactorily justified by the buy-bust team. Under Section 21 of the IRR, the Court may allow deviation from the procedure only where the following requisites are present: (1) the existence of justifiable grounds to allow departure from the rule on strict compliance; and (2) the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team. If these two elements are present, the seizures and custody over the confiscated items shall not be rendered void and invalid.23
- place where the search warrant is served; or
- at the nearest police station; or
- nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizure.
Barangay councilor Gaffud testified similarly:
[Cross-examination of barangay councilor Burce by Atty. Jaime Felicen (Atty. Felicen), counsel for Tomawis] [Clarificatory questions by the Court:] [Q] - Will you please tell us how you came to sign the Certificate of Inventory? A - Your Honor, I just like to inform you that I was not part in the Operation of PDEA but according to the Book of PDEA any Government or Local Officials that they have a responsibility to sign as witness in the Inventory. [Q] - How were you called by PDEA to sign the inventory? A - I was at the Basketball Court your Honor, when they called me. [Q] - What did they inform you? A - That they conducted a buy-bust operation your honor and they presented to us the evidence they recovered and the person who were arrested. [Q] - Who were present during the Inventory of the drug evidence, aside from you? A - Kagawad Minda Gaffud, your Honor. [Q] - Who else? A - The PDEA, your Honor. x x x x [Q] - How about the accused was he present during the Inventory? A - Yes, your Honor. x x x x ATTY. FELICEN: [Q] - Who was in possession of the items brought to the Brgy. when it was Inventoried? A - When I reached the office, the confiscated items were already placed on the top of the table and then the items were presented there and then we even asked the accused if the items were recovered from him, sir. x x x x [Q] - So, what you did is you just affixed your signature in this Certificate of Inventory without knowing where the items came from? A - I was informed by the PDEA Operatives sir, that the items were recovered from a buy-bust operation conducted at the Metropolis. Q - Aside from the information from the PDEA you have no other personal knowledge? A - Yes, sir. Q - You even do not know who was the person who put those items on top of the table? A - No, sir.26 (Emphasis supplied)
From the above testimonies, it can be gleaned that barangay councilors Burce and Gaffud were not present near to or at the place of arrest. They were merely called to witness the inventory at the Pinyahan barangay hall and then the drugs were shown to them by the PDEA agents. They did not even have prior knowledge of the buy-bust operation.
[Cross-examination of barangay councilor Gaffud by Atty. Felicen] Q - Who in particular told you to witness the Inventory? A - I was called by one of the Brgy. Tanod and I was informed that the PDEA Operatives arrived at the office sir, and they need one Brgy. Official to witness the Inventory, sir. Q - So, when you were about to witness the inventory, you just saw the items to be inventory (sic) at that time on top of the table also? A - The items were not yet at the table, when I arrived, they got the items from one of the PDEA Operatives, sir. Q - From where did that member of the PDEA got (sic) the items? A - They were holding a plastic sir, and they brought out the content of the plastic sir, and they place it on top of the table, sir.27 (Emphasis supplied)
In the present case, there are gaps in the chain of custody of the seized drugs which creates reasonable doubt as to the identity and integrity thereof.
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 of 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[.] (Emphasis supplied)
IO1 Alejandro testified that she received the drugs from Tomawis and that she submitted the same to the laboratory for testing. The inventory was conducted by the assigned Inventory Officer, IO1 Alfonso. However, there is no testimony as to the movement of the drugs from IO1 Alejandro to IO1 Alfonso, and supposedly back again from IO1 Alfonso to IO1 Alejandro for the submission of the seized drugs to the crime laboratory.
[Direct examination of IO1 Alejandro by Fiscal Romeo B. Senson (Fiscal Senson)] Q: And after the accused went back after ten minutes, what happened next? A: He asked me the money again and then I said, where is the shabu? When he showed me the shabuI gave him the money and he gave me the shabu. Q: And after that he gave you the shabu what happened next? A: I already gave my pre-arranged signal, your Honor. Q: And after you gave the pre-arranged signal, what happened next, Ms. Witness? A: My immediate back-up came to arrest Mr. Basher Tomawis, sir. Q: And who is this back-up, Ms. Witness? A: IO1 Beltran Lacap, Jr. Q: And after the accused was arrested, what happened next? A: We stated his constitutional rights, you Honor. Q: And after the accused was apprehended, what did you do next, Ms. Witness? A: We were not able to put markings on the evidence in the vicinity, your Honor, because of the commotion happened when we arrested the accused Mr. Basher Tomawis, your Honor. Q: What commotion happened, Ms. Witness? A: The bystanders inside the food court, your Honor, inside the mall, wanted to help Mr. Basher Tomawis. Q: And what did you do if any? A: Our Team Leader immediately ordered us to vacate the area, your Honor, so that we can avoid any incident that may happen inside the mall, sir. x x x x Q: And after that, what happened next? A: We brought the said evidence to Brgy. Pinyahan, your Honor, to properly make the inventory of the seized evidence, your Honor. Q: And where is this Brgy. Pinyahan? A: At the V. Luna, Quezon City, your Honor. Q: And was this inventory reduced into writing? A: Yes, in the case folder, your Honor. x x x x Q: Ms. Witness in this inventory you made mention of plastic containing crystalline substance suspected to be shabu. What happened to this item, Ms. Witness? A: We brought it to the PDEA Laboratory, sir. Q: And who brought this item to the laboratory, Ms. Witness? A: I was the one who brought this, sir. x x x x Q: If I will show you the item that you brought to the laboratory for examination, would you be able to identify it, Ms. Witness? A: Yes, sir. Q: Will you please tell us what identifying marks did you put it if any? A: My initial, your Honor, the initial MCA and the initial of Beltran Lacap, Jr., BTL. x x x x Q: Will you please explain to us, Ms. Witness, why did you not affix your own signature in the inventory marked as Exhibit "F"? A: The reason why, your Honor, because I was the poseur buyer and my colleague was assigned as Inventory Officer. He is the Inventory Officer in our office, your Honor. All the seized items for inventory after brought to the barangay and before bringing the said items to the PDEA Laboratory, IO1 Romano Alfonso was the one who kept them your Honor.32 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Thus, based on the above testimonies, only the following circumstances were established: the drugs were seized from Tomawis at Starman, Alabang; the inventory and photographing were not conducted there because a commotion ensued when Tomawis was arrested; the buy bust team brought Tomawis to the barangay hall of Brgy. Pinyahan; the inventory was conducted by the designated Inventory Officer, IO1 Alfonso; barangay councilors Burce and Gaffud were present at the barangay hall; after the inventory, the buy-bust team, together with Tomawis, proceeded to the PDEA office; IO1 Alejandro delivered the seized drugs to the laboratory for testing.
[Direct examination of IO1 Lacap by Fiscal Senson] Q: What was recovered from the accused if any? A: A maroon pouch, sir, with folka (sic) dots and inside is a suspected shabu placed in a knot tied plastic sachet, sir. Q: And who recovered this pouch, Mr. Witness? A: I was, sir. Q: If will be shown to you again this pouch, can you identify it? A: Yes, sir. Q: And from whom did you recover this pouch? A: The pouch belonged to Alejandro, sir. Q: The pouch was recovered by Agent Alejandro. What did you recover if any, Mr. Witness? A: The buy bust money placed in a white envelope, sir. x x x x Q: How come you did not have time to make the inventory in the area? A: At that time, sir, the vendors around who knew the accused tried to help the accused, sir. There was a little scuffle, sir. x x x x Q: Where did you go Mr. Witness? A: To the National Headquarters, PDEA, sir. Q: When arrived (sic) thereat, what happened next? A: Before that we went to barangay in Quezon City for the purpose of inventory of evidence. Q: And what happened at the barangay office? A: Kagawad Gaffud and Kagawad Burce witnessed the inventory, sir.33 (Emphasis supplied) x x x x [Cross-examination of IO1 Lacap by Atty. Felicen] Q: And so it was Alejandro who was in the possession of the item shabu allegedly recovered from the accused at the Metropolis to Brgy[.] Pinyahan? A: Yes, sir. Q: And surprisingly, however, the officer who conducted the inventory was IO1 Romano? A: Yes, sir. Q: IO1 Romano was not part of the actual operation inside the Metropolis? A: No, sir. Q: Was he inside the [M]etropolis? A: He is also a member of the support team. Q: Was he inside? A: Yes, sir. Q: Meaning, that IO1 Alejandro turn-over (sic) the item to IO1 Romano? A: No, sir, until we brought it to the crime laboratory for examination. Q: So despite that Mabel Alejandro was the one who personally allegedly recovered the item from the suspect she did not sign the inventory including you and IO1 Romano? A: Yes, sir. We signed as witness, sir, but Agent Romano Alfonso was designated as Inventory Officer. Q: Are you sure that he signed the inventory or you are not sure? A: That is what I know. Q: The truth is that you did not witness the signing of the inventory, is that correct? A: Only Agent Romano, sir.34 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
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.36As the drug itself is the corpus delicti in drugs cases, it is of utmost importance that there be no doubt or uncertainty as to its identity and integrity.
x x x [A]ny divergence from the prescribed procedure must be justified and should not affect the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated contraband. Absent any of the said conditions, the noncompliance is an irregularity, a red flag, that casts reasonable doubt on the identity of the corpus delicti.46 (Emphasis supplied)This means that even in the event that the presumption of regularity may stand, it will not be stronger than the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused.47 Otherwise, a mere rule of evidence will defeat the constitutionally enshrined right to be presumed innocent.48 Trial courts have been directed by the Court to apply this differentiation.49
The Court strongly supports the campaign of the government against drug addiction and commends the efforts of our law enforcement officers against those who would inflict this malediction upon our people, especially the susceptible youth. But as demanding as this campaign may be, it cannot be more so than the compulsions of the Bill of Rights for the protection of liberty of every individual in the realm, including the basest of criminals. The Constitution covers with the mantle of its protection that innocent and the guilty alike against any manner of high-handedness from the authorities, however praiseworthy their intentions.In the same vein, the Court likewise reiterates:
Those who are supposed to enforce the law are not justified in disregarding the rights of the individual in the name of order. [For indeed,] [o]rder is too high a price for the loss of liberty. x x x50
In this light, prosecutors are strongly reminded that they have the positive duty to prove compliance with the procedure set forth in Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended. As such, they must have the initiative to not only acknowledge but also justify any perceived deviations from the said procedure during the proceedings before the trial court. Since compliance with this procedure is determinative of the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti and ultimately, the fate of the liberty of the accused, the fact that any issue regarding the same was not raised, or even threshed out in the court/s below, would not preclude the appellate court, including this Court, from fully examining the record/s of the case if only to ascertain whether the procedure had been completely complied with, and if not, whether justifiable reasons exist to excuse any deviation. If no such reasons exist, then it is the appellate court's bounden duty to acquit the accused, and perforce, overturn a conviction.51WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated June 6, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 06662 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Basher Tomawis y Ali is hereby ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless he is confined for any other lawful cause.
Endnotes:
* Acting Chief Justice per Special Order No. 2539 dated February 28, 2018.
1People v. Pagaura, 334 Phil. 683, 690 (1997); People v. Salangga, 304 Phil. 571, 589 (1994); italics supplied.
2Rollo, pp. 17-19.
3 Id. at 2-16. Penned by Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam (now a Member of this Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Francisco B. Acosta and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr.
4 CA rollo, pp. 57-70. Penned by Presiding Judge Juanita T. Guerrero.
5 SEC. 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 AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES (2002).
7 Records, pp. 2-4.
8 Id. at 2-3.
9 Id. at 44-46.
10 Pre-Trial Order dated August 20, 2009, id. at 118 to 119-A.
11Rollo, pp. 4-6.
12 Id. at 6-7.
13 Supra note 4.
14 CA rollo, pp. 66-69.
15 Notice of Appeal dated February 4, 2014, records, p. 389.
16 See Brief for the Accused-Appellant, CA rollo, pp. 29-56.
17 CA Decision dated June 6, 2016, supra note 3.
18 Id. at 9-15.
19 Supra note 2.
20People v. Goco, G.R. No. 219584, October 17, 2016, 806 SCRA 240, 251.
21People v. Suan, 627 Phil. 174, 188 (2010).
22 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."
23 See People v. Cayas, 789 Phil. 70, 79-80 (2016).
24Gamboa v. People, G.R. No. 220333, November 14, 2016, 808 SCRA 624, 637, citing People v. Umipang, 686 Phil. 1024, 1038-1039 (2012).
25 Id. at 637-638.
26 TSN, June 20, 2012, pp. 5-8.
27 Id. at 13.
28 736 Phil. 749 (2014).
29 Id. at 764.
30 IRR of RA 9165, Sec. 21(a).
31 703 Phil. 58, 73 (2013).
32 TSN, September 23, 2009, pp. 9-13, 20.
33 TSN, November 4, 2010, pp. 10-13.
34 TSN, December 8, 2010, pp. 6-7.
35 576 Phil. 576 (2008).
36 Id. at 588-589.
37 Exhibit "F," records p. 18.
38 Described as "red polka dots pouch" in the Request for Laboratory Examination (Exhibit "H") and "gold and red with white polka dots pouch" in the Chemistry Report (Exhibit "I"), id. at 20-21.
39 Request for Laboratory Examination, Exhibit "H," id. at 20.
40 Exhibit "I," id. at 21.
41 See 1987 CONSTITUTION, Art. III, Sec. 14(2) which provides:Sec. 14. x x x42People v. Belocura, 693 Phil. 476, 503-504 (2012).
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved x x x.
43 SEC. 3. Disputable presumptions. - x x x
x x x x(m) That official duty has been regularly performed[.]
44 See People v. Mendoza, supra note 28, at 770.
45 718 Phil. 352 (2013).
46 Id. at 366.
47 See People v. Mendoza, supra note 28, at 770.
48 Id.
49 Id.
50People v. Go, 457 Phil. 885, 925 (2003), citing People v. Aminnudin, 246 Phil. 424, 434-435 (1988).
51People v. Jugo, G.R. No. 231792, January 29, 2018, p. 10.