SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 219164, March 21, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RICHAEL LUNA Y TORSILINO, Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
CAGUIOA, J.:
"x x x And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!"- Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons1
Criminal Case No. 2008-3529-D-MKWhen arraigned on September 17, 2008, accused-appellant Luna entered a plea of "not guilty" for both offenses charged.12 Pre-trial was then held and terminated on October 8, 2008.13 Trial thereafter ensued.
That on April 14, 2008, in the City of Marikina, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell to SPO1 Ramiel Soriano, posing as a buyer, a small plastic sachet containing 0.03 gram of white crystalline substance valued at Php. 300.00 which gave positive result to the tests for the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of the above cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.10
Criminal Case No. 2008-3530-D-MK
That on or about the 14th day of April 2008, in the City of Marikina, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law to possess or otherwise use any dangerous drugs, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in her (sic) possession, direct custody and control one (1) plastic sachets (sic) containing 0.01 gram of white crystalline substance which gave positive result to the tests for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.11
WHEREFORE, finding the accused RICHAEL LUNA y TORSILINO @ BUNSO guilty beyond reasonable doubt, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the following: (1) In Criminal Case No. 2008-3529-D to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) and, (2) In Criminal Case No. 2008-3530-D accused is hereby sentenced to suffer x x x an indeterminate prison term ranging from twelve (12) years, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years as maximum and to pay a fine of P300,000.00[.]The RTC found that the prosecution was able to establish the elements necessary for the separate crimes of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs.52 It was held that accused-appellant Luna's defense of denial could not prevail over the positive allegations of the police officers, who were presumed to be in the regular performance of their official duties.53 Further, while there was an admitted non-compliance by the officers with the procedure under Section 21 of RA 9165, i.e., the presence of the required witnesses after seizure, the RTC nevertheless held that the integrity and evidentiary value of the items seized were preserved.54 Accused-appellant Luna filed a Motion for Reconsideration55 dated December 17, 2010, which was denied by the RTC in an Order56 dated May 10, 2011.
Accused is credited in full of the preventive imprisonment he has already served in confinement.
The dangerous drug submitted as evidence in this case is hereby ordered to be transmitted to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper disposition.
SO ORDERED.51
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the APPEAL is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, the Joint Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 168, Marikina on December 8, 2010, which pronounced accused-appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, is hereby AFFIRMED.Hence, this appeal.
SO ORDERED.60
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:Meanwhile, the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 (IRR) supplied details as to the place where the physical inventory and photographing of the seized items should be done, i.e., at the place of seizure, at the nearest police station, or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer or team. Further, a "saving clause" was added in case of non-compliance with the requirements under justifiable grounds. Section 21(a), Article II of the IRR, thus states:
(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; italics in the original)
SECTION 21. x x xIn sum, the law puts in place requirements of time, witnesses and proof of inventory with respect to the custody of seized dangerous drugs, to wit:
(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[.]
As a rule, strict compliance with the foregoing requirements is mandatory.64 However, following the IRR ofRA 9165, the courts may allow a deviation from these requirements if the following requisites are availing: (1) the existence of "justifiable grounds" allowing 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.65 If these two elements concur, the seizure and custody over the confiscated items shall not be rendered void and invalid; ergo, the integrity of the corpus delicti remains untarnished. The Court's disquisition in People v. Reyes66 is particularly illuminating:
- The initial custody requirements must be done immediately after seizure or confiscation;
- The physical inventory and photographing must be done in the presence of:
- The accused or his representative or counsel;
- The required witnesses:
- a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official for offenses committed during the effectivity of RA 9165 and prior to its amendment by RA 10640, as in this case;
- an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service of the DOJ or the media for offenses committed during the effectivity of RA 10640.
Under the last paragraph of Section 21(a), Article II of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165, a saving mechanism has been provided to ensure that not every case of noncompliance with the procedures for the preservation of the chain of custody will irretrievably prejudice the Prosecution's case against the accused. To warrant the application of this saving mechanism, however, the Prosecution must recognize the lapse or lapses, and justify or explain them. Such justification or explanation would be the basis for applying the saving mechanism. Yet, the Prosecution did not concede such lapses, and did not even tender any token justification or explanation for them. The failure to justify or explain underscored the doubt and suspicion about the integrity of the evidence of the corpus delicti. With the chain of custody having been compromised, the accused deserves acquittal. x x x67 (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted)Following a plain reading of the law, it is now settled that noncompliance with the mandatory procedure in Section 21 triggers the operation of the saving clause enshrined in the IRR of RA 9165. Verba legis non est recedendum from the words of a statute there should be no departure. Stated otherwise, in order not to render void and invalid the seizure and custody over the evidence obtained, the prosecution must, as a matter of law, establish that such non-compliance was based on justifiable grounds and that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved.68 Hence, before the prosecution can rely on this saving mechanism, they (the apprehending team) must first recognize lapses, and, if any are found to exist, they must justify the same accordingly.69
Again, during his cross-examination, SPO1 Soriano confirmed the fact that none of the required witnesses was present at the time of the seizure and during the preparation of the inventory and neither were they furnished a copy of the same, as categorically required by Section 21:
PROSECUTOR SUBONG: x x x x Q Where exactly did you prepare the Inventory of Confiscated Evidence? A At the crime scene, sir. x x x x Q On this Inventory of [C]onfiscated Evidence marked as Exhibit "H", there is a note which states "Arrested person refused to sign" why did you put this note on this document? A To show that he does not want to sign on that document, sir. Q Who are you referring to as the one who refused to sign this document? A Rich[a]el Luna, sir. Q [T]here is a [signature] atop the name Oscar Frank Rabe, Brgy. Kagawad, where did Kagawad Rabe sign this document? A At the Barangay Hall, sir. Q How about Danny Pla[c]ides, who is the representative of the Media? A Here, sir, in our office.75 (Emphasis supplied)
The fact that only the police officers were present during the apprehension of accused-appellant Luna is enough to raise concern. In such an environment, police impunity becomes inherent. To state the obvious, assuming arguendo that there was indeed evidence planted, it would be virtually impossible for accused-appellant Luna - or any accused placed in a similar plight - to overcome the oft-favored testimony of police officers through mere denial. This is further aggravated by the known fact that entrapment procedures are inevitably shrouded with secrecy and cunningness to ensure the success of the operation.77
Q: So the only person present at that time you effected the arrest and at the time that you confiscated this shabu from his pocket were you, the accused, PO3 Daño and PO2 Anos? A: Yes, sir. Q: So there are only four of you? A: Yes, sir. Q: Did you turn over any of the pieces of evidence to any of these other police officers? A: No, sir. x x x x Q: Now, where was the accused, Mr. Witness, when the certificate of inventory was being filled up? A: He was in front of me when I filled up the certificate of inventory, sir. Q: The only copy of this certificate of inventory, you turned it over to the Office of the City Prosecutor, is this correct? A: Yes, sir. Q: There was no copy handed to the accused, is this correct? A: None, sir. Q: As well as the barangay and media? A: Yes, sir. Q: Now, you testified earlier that the only person present at the time you arrested the accused and at the time you confiscated the pieces of evidence were you, the accused and PO3 Daño and PO2 Anos, is this correct? A: Yes, sir. Q: So the barangay and media representative were not present at that time, correct? A: Yes, sir.76 (Emphasis supplied)
Significantly, in the Coordination Form80 dated April 14, 2008 prepared by the buy-bust team ahead of the operation, a "camera" was among the listed "special equipment" that were to be used in the operation.81 Hence, considering that the buy-bust team was able to accomplish the Inventory of Confiscated Evidence at the place of seizure (albeit there was belated participation of the required witnesses), there was no compelling reason for them to defer the photographing requirement until their return to the police station. Neither was it apparent from the records that the photograph of accused-appellant Luna holding the plastic sachets was taken in the presence of the witnesses, as mandated by Section 21.
Q: Did you turn over any of the pieces of evidence to any of these other police officers? A: No, sir. Q: Now, there is a photograph here of the accused holding an alleged suspected plastic sachet. Suspected to contain illegal drug, Mr. Witness. Was this taken at the police station? A: Yes, sir. Q: Now, did you instruct him to hold this plastic sachet with markings in order for him to be photographed with this specimen? A: Yes, sir. x x x x Q: Now, you testified earlier that the only person present at the time you arrested the accused and at the time you confiscated pieces of evidence were you, the accused and PO3 Daño and PO2 Anos, is this correct? A: Yes, sir. Q: So the barangay and media representative were not present at that time, correct? A: Yes, sir.79 (Emphasis supplied)
Na, aking nilagyan ng rnarkang "RTL-RS BUYBUST" 04/14/08 ang aking nabiling isang pirasong transparent plastic sachet na may larnang pinaghihinalaang shabu.In this regard, considering that the first prong of the saving clause was not complied with, any and all evidence tending to establish the chain of custody of the seized drugs become immaterial. Given the fact that patent irregularities were already present at the point of seizure - the supposed "first link" in the chain - there is no more practical value to establishing an unbroken chain of custody to show that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved.
Na, akin ding nilagyan ng markang "RTL-RS POSS" 04/14/08 ang aking nakumpiska sa kanyang pag-iingat na isang pirasong transparent plastic sachet na may larnang pinaghihinalaang shabu.
Na, ako ay gumawa ng inventory of confiscated evidence at akin itong pinirmahan at hindi lumagda ang taong suspetsado at pinirmahan ng Brgy[.] Official ng Brgy. Tumana, Lungsod ng Marikina sa katauhan ni Brgy. Kagawad Oscar Frank Rabe at representante ng Media nasi Danny Placides ng Saksi/Bomba.
Na, aking kinuhanan ng litrato ang nasabing ebedensiya habang hawak ng taong suspetsado[.]
Na, ang taong suspetsado ay arning dinala sa tanggapan ng EPD Crime Lab para ipadrug test, at kasarna ang ebedensiya na nakumpiska sa kaniya para sa isang laboratory examination at amin siyang pinagsakdal sa paglabag sa RA 9165 Article 2 Section 5 (SELLING) at Section 11 (POSSESSION).84
Accused insists that there was no buy-bust operation and that the shabu allegedly sold by him to the poseur buyer was planted evidence. His defense of denial cannot prevail over the positive allegation of prosecution witness SPO1 Ramiel Soriano. He did not present evidence that the prosecution witnesses had motive to falsely charge him. Neither did accused prove that the police officers did not perform their duties regularly. x x x The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that a positive testimony has more weight and credit in law than the bare denials of an accused especially if no motive was attributed to the witness for testifying unfavorably. The police officers went to the area for the simple purpose of performing the task assigned by their superior to apprehend herein accused for his illegal activity. As public officers, they were presumed to be in the performance of their duties. Where there is no evidence to the contrary, law enforcers' narration of the incident is worthy of belief and as such, they are presumed to have performed their duties in the regular manner x x x. It is an established rule that the testimonies of the police officers are entitled to full faith and credit. They are presumed to be in the regular performance of official duties x x x.91 (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted)This is grievous error. The RTC's reliance on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty is misplaced considering that there was affirmative proof of irregularity in the records.92 To say the least, the admitted failure of the police officers to comply with the requirements in Section 21 effectively neutralized the presumption relied upon; there was no basis in fact and law to rely on the same. This Court, in People v. Catalan,93 had already warned the lower courts against this pitfall:
Both lower courts favored the members of the buy-bust team with the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duty, mainly because the accused did not show that they had ill motive behind his entrapment.In this case, the non-compliance with Section 21 without the triggering of the saving clause is a showing of irregularity that effectively rebuts the presumption. As previously ruled in People v. Enriquez,95 any divergence from the prescribed procedure, when left unjustified, is "an irregularity, a red flag, that casts reasonable doubt on the identity of the corpus delicti."96
We hold that both lower courts committed gross error in relying on the presumption of regularity.
Presuming that the members of the buy-bust team regularly performed their duty was patently bereft of any factual and legal basis. We remind the lower courts that the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty could not prevail over the stronger presumption of innocence favoring the accused. Otherwise, the constitutional guarantee of the accused being presumed innocent would be held subordinate to a mere rule of evidence allocating the burden of evidence. Where, like here, the proof adduced against the accused has not even overcome the presumption of innocence, the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty could not be a factor to adjudge the accused guilty of the crime charged.
Moreover, the regularity of the performance of their duty could not be properly presumed in favor of the policemen because the records were replete with indicia of their serious lapses. As a rule, a presumed fact like the regularity of performance by a police officer must be inferred only from an established basic fact, not plucked out from thin air. To say it differently, it is the established basic fact that triggers the presumed fact of regular performance. Where there is any hint of irregularity committed by the police officers in arresting the accused and thereafter, several of which we have earlier noted, there can be no presumption of regularity of performance in their favor.94 (Emphasis supplied; italics in the original)
Endnotes:
* Acting Chief Justice per Special Order No. 2539 dated February 28, 2018.
1 "A Man for All Seasons Quotes," <https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/1358325-a-man-for-allseasons>, last accessed on March 19, 2018; see "A Man For All Seasons Script - Dialogue Transcript," transcript from the screenplay and/or the Paul Scofield as Thomas More movie, <http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/m/man-for-all-seasons-script.html>, last accessed on March 19, 2018.
2Rollo, pp. 16-18.
3 Id. at 2-15. Penned by Associate Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr., with Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Pedro B. Corales concurring.
4 CA rollo, pp. 11-24. Penned by Presiding Judge Lorna F. Catris-Chua Cheng.
5 Also referred to as Crim. Cases Nos. 08-3529-30-D-MK in some parts of the records.
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. 1, 28.
8 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.
9 SEC. 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. - x x x
x x x x
x x x if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows:
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.
10 Records, p. 1.
11 Id. at 28.
12 CA Rollo, p. 12.
13 Id.
14Rollo, p. 3.
15 Id.
16 Bearing serial numbers BP966509, PV642138, and WE463138 (records, p. 12). In the Pre-Operational Report and Coordination Form, both dated April 14, 2008, one (1) Five Hundred Peso (P500.00) bill bearing serial number EL476637 was also issued to be used as buy-bust money (records, pp. 9-10). The said bill was never accounted for during trial nor was any explanation given by the witnesses for its non-use in the buy-bust operation.
17Rollo, p. 3.
18 CA Rollo, p. 16.
19Rollo, p. 3.
20 Id. at 3-4.
21 Id. at 4.
22 Id.
23 Id.
24 Id.
25 Id.
26 Id.
27 Id.
28 Id.
29 Records, p. 11.
30Rollo, p. 4.
31 Id.
32 TSN, April 15, 2009, p.15.
33Rollo, p. 5.
34 Id.
35 Id. at 6.
36 Id. at 6-7; CA rollo, pp. 16 and 17.
37 Id. at 7.
38 Id.
39 Id.
40 Id.
41 Id.
42 Id.
43 CA Rollo, p. 17.
44 Id.
45 Id.
46 Id.
47 Id.
48 Id.
49 Id.
50 Id.; rollo, p. 8.
51 Id. at 23-24.
52 Id. at 19-20.
53 Id. at 20.
54 Id. at 22-23.
55 Records, pp. 202-209.
56 Id. at 215-216.
57 CA rollo, pp. 25-26.
58Rollo, pp. 12-13.
59 Id. at 13.
60 Id. at 14.
61 Appellant's Brief dated January 4, 2013; CA rollo, p. 68.
62 Id. at 70-71.
63 Section 21 of RA 9165 was amended by RA 10640, entitled "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'." RA 10640, which imposed less stringent requirements in the procedure under Section 21, was approved on July 15, 2014. Section 21, as amended by RA 10640 reads: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:64 See People v. Cayas, 789 Phil. 70, 79 (2016); see also People v. Havana, 776 Phil. 462, 475 (2016).
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, That the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures: Provided, finally, That noncompliance of these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items. (Emphasis supplied)
65 RA 9165, Sec. 21(1), as implemented by its IRR.
66 G.R. No. 199271, October 19, 2016, 806 SCRA 513.
67 Id. at 536.
68 RA 9165, Sec. 21(1), as implemented by its IRR.
69 See People v. Alagarme, 754 Phil. 449, 461 (2015).
70 RA 9165, Sec. 21(1); emphasis supplied.
71 Prior to the 2014 amendment by RA 10640, the Court clarified in Reyes v. Court of Appeals, 686 Phil. 137, 150-151 (2012) "that in compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, supra, the physical inventory and photographing of the seized articles should be conducted, if practicable, at the place of seizure or confiscation in cases of warrantless seizure. But that was true only if there were indications that petitioner tried to escape or resisted arrest, which might provide the reason why the arresting team was not able to do the inventory or photographing at petitioner's house; otherwise, the physical inventory and photographing must always be immediately executed at the place of seizure or confiscation."
72 See People v. Mendoza, 736 Phil. 749, 764 (2014).
73Rollo, p. 4.
74 Id.
75 TSN, February 23, 2009, pp. 19-20.
76 TSN, April 15, 2009, pp. 14-16.
77 See People v. Tan, 401 Phil. 259, 273 (2000).
78 TSN, April 15, 2009, p. 14.
79 Id. at 14-16.
80 Records, p. 10.
81 Id.
82 See People v. Capuno, 655 Phil. 226, 240-241 (2011), citing People v. Garcia, 599 Phil. 416, 432-433 (2009); People v. Reyes, supra note 66, at 536.
83 Records, pp. 4-6.
84 Id. at 5-6.
85 CONSTITUTION, Art. III, Sec. 14, par. (2). "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. x x x"
86 See People v. Catalan, 699 Phil. 603, 620 (2012).
87People v. Castro, 346 Phil. 894, 911-912 (1997).
88 RULES OF COURT, Rule 133, Sec. 2 provides that proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Only moral certainty is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.
89People v. Belocura, 693 Phil. 476, 503-504 (2012).
90People v. Pagaura, 334 Phil. 683, 690 (1997); People v. Salangga, 304 Phil. 571, 589 (1994).
91 CA Rollo, p. 20.
92People v. Mendoza, supra note 72, at 770.
93 Supra note 86.
94 Id. at 621.
95 718 Phil. 352 (2013).
96 Id. at 366.
97People v. Mendoza, supra note 72, at 770.
98 Id.
99 Id.
100Gamboa v. People, G.R. No. 220333, November 14, 2016, 808 SCRA 624, 637, citing People v. Umipang, 686 Phil. 1024, 1038-1039 (2012).