FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 237769, March 11, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. EDWIN LABADAN Y MANMANO AND RAQUEL SAGUM Y MARTINEZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
D E C I S I O N
GESMUNDO, J.:
This is an appeal from the September 7, 2017 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 08440 affirming the July 1, 2016 Judgment2 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 79 of Quezon City (RTC), in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-13-05013-CR finding Edwin Labadan y Manmano (Labadan) and Raquel Sagum y Martinez (Sagum) (collectively referred to as accused-appellants) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. They were each sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).
That on or about the 11th day of November, 2013 in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring together, confederating with and mutually helping each other, without lawful authority, did, then and there, willfully and unlawfully sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport, or act as broker in the said transaction, One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic bag containing five point thirty nine (5.39) grams of Methamphetamine hydrochloride or "Shabu," a dangerous drug.Upon arraignment, accused-appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge.4 Trial on the merits followed.
CONTRARY TO LAW.3
The parties also entered into stipulations on the testimony of Police Chief Inspector Jocelyn Belen Julian (PCI Julian), the forensic chemist, in lieu of her testimony in court on the following terms:
- SPO2 Jeny Abad is the investigator assigned in this case;
- during the investigation, the arresting officers presented to him the specimen subject of this case;
- after the specimen was presented to him, he prepared the following documents:
- Request for Laboratory Examination;
- Request for Drug Test;
- Request for Physical Examination;
- Affidavit of Arrest of the accused;
- Arrest and Booking Sheet; and
- Referral Letter;
- he can identify the accused as well as the specimen subject of this case;
- he signed the Chain of Custody [Form];
- he mechanically prepared the Inventory Receipt;
- he has no personal knowledge as to the facts and circumstances surrounding the arrest of the accused; and
- he has no personal knowledge as to the source of the specimen subject of his investigation.5
PO3 Diomampo and PO3 Zamora testified that on November 11, 2013, at 3:30 p.m., a confidential informant (informant) went to Camp Karingal, Quezon City. He stated that he could facilitate a drug deal with accused appellants for the purchase of P15,000.00 worth of drugs. Police Senior Inspector Roberto Razon (PSI Razon) instructed PO3 Diomampo and other police officers to conduct a buy-bust operation. A buy-bust team was formed, composed of PO3 Diomampo, PO3 Zamora, PO3 Miguel Cordero, PO3 Fernando Salonga, and others. PO3 Diomampo was assigned as poseur-buyer, with PO3 Zamora as back-up arresting officer. Two genuine P500.00 bills, marked as "JD" and twenty-eight (28) pieces of boodle money were prepared as buy-bust money.7
- PCI Julian received a letter-request for laboratory examination dated November 19, 2013;
- Attached to the letter-request was the specimen subject of the present case, which was one (1) piece heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with markings "JD/RS 11-19-13";
- After PCI Julian received the letter-request, she conducted a qualitative examination of the specimen;
- After the examination of the specimen:
- It gave a positive result to the test for [methylamphetamine] hydrochloride, a dangerous drug;
- PCI Julian issued Chemistry Report No. D-325-13;
- PCI Julian sealed the specimen subject of her examination, and surrendered the same to evidence custodian;
- PCI Julian retrieved the specimen she examined on December 11, 2013 for the preliminary conference of this case;
- PCI Julian can identify the plastic sachet subject of her examination;
- She has no personal knowledge as to the facts and circumstances surrounding the arrest of the two (2) accused; and
- PCI Julian has no personal knowledge as to the source of the specimen subject of her examination.6
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused EDWIN LABADAN y MANMANO and RAQUEL SAGUM y MARTINEZ GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of violation of Section 5, Article II, of Republic Act [No.] 9165, and they are hereby sentenced to suffer life imprisonment, and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) each.
The Branch Clerk of Court is directed to immediately turn over to the Chief of PDEA Crime Laboratory, the subject drugs covered by Chemistry Report No. D-335-13, to be disposed of in strict conformity with the provisions of Republic Act No. 9165 and its implementing rules and regulations on the matter.
SO ORDERED.13
ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated July 1, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 79 of Quezon City in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-13-05013-CR finding both accused-appellants Edwin Labadan y Manmano and Raquel Sagum y Martinez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs in violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of Republic Act No. 9165 also known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," as amended, is hereby AFFIRMED.Hence, this appeal.
SO ORDERED.16
WHETHER THE RTC AND THE CA ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT TO THE TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES DESPITE THEIR MATERIAL INCONSISTENCIES, THUS CASTING DOUBT UPON THEIR CREDIBILITY;Accused-appellants' Arguments
WHETHER THE RTC AND THE CA ERRED IN DISREGARDING ACCUSED-APPELLANTS' DEFENSE;
WHETHER THE RTC AND THE CA ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED APPELLANTS GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY OF THE PROHIBITED DRUG AND TO PRESERVE ITS INTEGRITY AND EVIDENTIARY VALUE.20
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.The prosecution must prove the presence of the following elements to secure the conviction of a person accused of the crime of sale of prohibited drugs: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. It is likewise essential for conviction that the drug subject of the sale be presented in court and its identity established with moral certainty through an unbroken chain of custody over the same. In addition, the prosecution must be able to account for each link in the chain of custody over the dangerous drug from the moment of seizure up to its presentation in court as evidence of the corpus delicti.24 Finally, the apprehending officers should be able to show their conformity with the proper procedure after the arrest of the accused. Unfortunately, in this case, the Court is unconvinced that the prosecution was able to prove an unbroken chain of custody, as well as compliance with Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165.
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:The chain of custody is established by testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered in evidence; in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received, and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.25
(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;
(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination;
(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued immediately upon the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the time frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided, however, That a final certification shall be issued immediately upon completion of the said examination and certification;
(4) After the filing of the criminal case, the Court shall, within seventy-two (72) hours, conduct an ocular inspection of the confiscated, seized and/or surrendered dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals, including the instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, and through the PDEA shall within twenty-four (24) hours thereafter proceed with the destruction or burning of 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 DOJ, civil society groups and any elected public official. The Board shall draw up the guidelines on the manner of proper disposition and destruction of such item/s which shall be borne by the offender: Provided, That those item/s of lawful commerce, as determined by the Board, shall be donated, used or recycled for legitimate purposes: Provided, further, That a representative sample, duly weighed and recorded is retained;
(5) The Board shall then issue a sworn certification as to the fact of destruction or burning of the subject item/s which, together with the representative sample/s in the custody of the PDEA, shall be submitted to the court having jurisdiction over the case. In all instances, the representative sample/s shall be kept to a minimum quantity as determined by the Board;
(6) The alleged offender or his/her representative or counsel shall be allowed to personally observe all of the above proceedings and his/her presence shall not constitute an admission of guilt. In case the said offender or accused refuses or fails to appoint a representative after due notice in writing to the accused or his/her counsel within seventy-two (72) hours before the actual burning or destruction of the evidence in question, the Secretary of Justice shall appoint a member of the public attorney's office to represent the former;
(7) After the promulgation and judgment in the criminal case wherein the representative sample/s was presented as evidence in court, the trial prosecutor shall inform the Board of the final termination of the case and, in turn, shall request the court for leave to turn over the said representative sample/s to the PDEA for proper disposition and destruction within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt of the same; x x x. (emphasis supplied)
The above statements demonstrate that PO3 Diomampo marked the sachet of shabu sold to him by accused-appellants upon their arrest; thus, the first link is sufficiently proved. The same can be said for the second link, as explained by the statement of turnover to SPO2 Abad. These same facts are backed up by the signatures on the chain of custody document.28
Q: Mr. witness, you stated during your initial direct-examination that you marked the plastic sachet at the area? A: Yes, ma'am. Q: And you already identified the plastic sachet, what happened after that, Mr. witness? A: After the markings, we proceeded to the Barangay Hall for the conduct of the inventory, ma'am. Q: And who were with you when you proceeded to the Barangay Hall, Mr. witness? A: The team and the accused, ma'am. Q: And where was the plastic sachet when you proceeded to the Barangay Hall? A: It was in my possession, ma'am. Q: And where is the Barangay Hall located? A: Tatalon, Quezon City, ma'am. Q: What did you do with the plastic sachet when you arrived at the Barangay Hall? A: It was presented to the person who will witness for the conduct of the inventory, ma'am. x x x x Q: And could you please tell to this Honorable court whose signatures appears thereon? A: This is my signature, the signature of the investigator and the signature of the witness, ma'am. Q: And who was the witness? A: Barangay Kagawad of Brgy. Tatalon, ma'am. Q: Who is this SPO2 Jerry Abad? A: Our investigator, ma'am. x x x x Q: And where was the accused when this inventory was made? A: He was inside in the Barangay Hall, ma'am. Q: Did he also witness the making of the inventory? A: Yes, ma'am. x x x x Q: So, you said after the arrest and recovery, you proceeded to the Barangay Hall of Tatalon, so, aside from the inventory, what else were done at the Barangay Hall? A: The taking of the photographs, ma'am. Q: In the Barangay Hall? A: Yes, ma'am. Q: Who took the photographs, Mr. witness? A: I can no longer remember, ma'am. Q: Where were you when the photographs were taken? A: I was present at the Barangay Hall, ma'am x x x x Q: And why did you not take pictures at the place of arrest and recovery? A: Because there were friends and relatives of the suspects shouting invective words, ma'am. Q: So, only the inventory and the taking of the pictures were done at the Barangay Hall? A: Yes, ma'am. x x x x Q: Who was in possession of the plastic sachet from the Barangay Hall to your office DAID? A: It was in my possession, ma'am. Q: So, what happened when you arrived at your office DAID? A: I turned it over to the investigator, ma'am. Q: And who was the investigator at that time? A: SPO2 Jerry Abad, ma'am. Q: What is your proof that you turned it over the plastic sachet to SPO2 Jerry Abad? A: The Chain of Custody, ma'am. x x x x Q: So, what happened after that, Mr. witness? A: The investigator also made a request for the examination of the specimen, Request for the physical examination of the accused and request for drug test examination of the accused, ma'am. Q: I am showing to you this Request for Drug Test Examination, are you referring to Exhibit "H"? A: Yes, ma'am. Q: And will you please tell the Honorable court the significance of the rubber stamp receipt appearing on the bottom portion of the document? A: This is to prove that I was the one who delivered this to the crime lab together with the accused, ma'am. x x x x Q: What happened after that, Mr. witness? A: I submitted the specimen for examination and also the accused for drug test examination. Q: And what was the result of the examination conducted on the specimen if you know? A: The specimen and the urine sample, they are both positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Q: Do you have the confirmatory result? A: Only the initial laboratory report of the crime lab, ma'am. Q: And attached to the record, Mr. witness is a turn Over of Confiscated/Seized Evidence, what is that all about? A: This is to prove that I turned over the specimen to the investigator, ma'am.27 (emphasis supplied)
Clearly, the third and fourth links in the chain of custody are sorely lacking. PO2 Saez's lone testimony leaves several questions unanswered. What happened to the drugs from the time Relos received it from PO2 Saez until it was eventually transmitted to the forensic chemist for examination? Were there other persons who came into contact with the drugs before the forensic chemist subjected it to examination? Who handed the drugs to the forensic chemist? How did Relos and the forensic chemist handle the drugs? Who ultimately transmitted the drugs seized from Angeles to the trial court to be used as evidence against him? The necessary details to prove the preservation of the integrity of the drugs recovered from Angeles remain a mystery. All these are left open to the realm of possibilities such that the evidentiary value of drugs presented in court was unduly prejudiced; considering that it cannot be said with certainty that the drugs were never compromised or tampered with.This case is akin to People of the Philippines v. Balubal,30 where the Court acquitted the accused-appellants because of breaks in the chain of custody. The pertinent portions of the decision are as follows:
While it is true that the credible and positive testimony of a single prosecution witness is sufficient to warrant a conviction, PO2 Saez's testimony is not enough. In the case at bar, the parties only stipulated the qualifications of the forensic chemist. Such stipulation is severely limited because it does not cover the manner as to how the specimen was handled before and after it came to the possession of the forensic chemist. (citations omitted, emphasis supplied)
Aside from the absence of a DOJ and media representatives, the prosecution also failed to establish the fourth link in the chain of custody. After the seized shabu was delivered by 101 Gaayon to PSI Tuazon for laboratory analysis, no one testified on how the specimen was handled thereafter. It failed to disclose the identity of the police officer to whom custody of the seized shabu was given after the laboratory examination, and how it was handled and kept until it was presented in court.The gaps in the stipulations made as to the testimony of PCI Julian are no different from those in the above cases. There is a complete lack of description as to the handling of the specimen after PCI Julian's examination. Reading the stipulations, the prosecution seemingly found it fitting to end the same with the assurance that it was PCI Julian who retrieved the specimen before its presentation to the RTC; and that she would be able to identify it as the same specimen she examined in relation to accused-appellants' case. Notably, the stipulation in PCI Julian's testimony stated that she retrieved the specimen on December 11, 2013; whereas the preliminary conference was held on December 3, 2013, and the pre-trial on February 7, 2014.33 The records do not show when the specimen was actually presented to the RTC, and whether it was in her possession in the meantime. Neither shown are the precautions taken by PCI Julian, or whoever had possession of the specimen, to ensure its integrity prior to bringing it to the RTC's custody. There is, thus, a lack of information as to who had the specimen and how it was handled between the time of examination to the presentation of the specimen to the trial court, when it was marked as Exh. "K." Such missing pieces of evidence should merit the acquittal of accused-appellants.
In People v. De Guzman,31 the Court discussed the importance of the unbroken link in the chain of custody. The prosecution's evidence must include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was seized to the time it is offered in court as evidence, such that every person who handled the evidence would acknowledge how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. The same witness would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have its possession. It is from the testimony of every witness who handled the evidence from which a reliable assurance can be derived that the evidence presented in court is one and the same as that seized from the accused.
In this case, the testimony of the forensic chemist was dispensed with. In the March 20, 2014 order of the RTC it simply stated that PSI Tuazon received the specimen submitted by the PDEA agent for laboratory examination. The testimony of PSI Tuazon was admitted by counsel for the appellant as well as the existence and due execution of the Chemistry Report No. D-50-2013. Thus, with said admission by the defense, PSI Tuazon's testimony was dispensed with.
x x x x
There was no concrete evidence as to whom the forensic chemist delivered the seized item before its presentation in court. From the time of the completion of the laboratory examination on June 4, 2013 up to the time the confiscated shabu was offered and marked as exhibit during the preliminary conference on November 19, 2013, it was not indicated in the record who was the custodian thereof. In the Chain of Custody Form, the name, designation and signature of the supposed evidence custodian were an left blank. This casts serious doubts on the handling of the confiscated shabu as it is not clear as to whom it was delivered to pending its presentation in court. This opens the possibility that integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug may have been compromised.32 (citation omitted, emphases supplied)
That, on the process, the relatives and friends of the arrested suspects were started to get mad by shouting us invective words, hence, to avoid commotion we compelled to bring the arrested suspects and the pieces of evidence to the office of Kagawad RODERICK E. OLAGUER of Brgy. Tatalon, QC who witnessed the inventory of the seized/confiscated item, thereafter, we brought them to our Office for investigation and proper disposition[.]34PO3 Diomampo's testimony proved likewise, viz:
On re-direct, he also testified:
Court: So, was there any Barangay Official who witnessed the marking of the specimen? A: I marked the evidence at the area, ma'am. Q: The marking was done without the presence of Barangay Kagawad? A: Yes, sir. Q: So, there is a clear violation of section 21 of RA 9165, right? Court: Your question calls for a conclusion. Q: When the photographs were taken, who were the persons who were present if you can recall, Mr. witness? A: I, the accused, BSDO and a Barangay Kagawad, sir.35
The latter point was confirmed by PO3 Zamora's testimony on cross-examination.37
Q: Mr. witness, you said that there were no representatives from the Media, from the DOJ and from the elected Barangay Official when you marked the evidence? A: Yes, ma'am. Q: Why is that? A: There were no available representatives from the Media and the DOJ at that time even we exerted efforts to secure their presence, ma'am. Q: Why do you know that there were no available representatives from the Media and DOJ at that time, who made the call to them? A: Our team leader, ma'am. Q: And you mentioned that there was somebody who followed you at the Barangay Hall who was shouting who was that person? A: According to them, they are the relatives of the accused.36 (emphases supplied)
In this case, after the plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance were seized by the arresting officers, they were marked by PO2 Burgos with his initials and brought to the nearby house of Malou. It is there where an inventory of the seized items was done in the presence of appellants and Kgd. Azarcon, as shown in the pictures taken by PO2 Julaton. However, only a barangay kagawad was present during the inventory and photographing of the seized items.In the recent case of People of the Philippines v. Lim,40 echoed in the Office of the Court Administrator Circular No. 210-18, the Court reiterated that it must be alleged and proved that the presence of witnesses to the physical inventory and photography of the illegal drug seized was not obtained due to reasons such as: (1) their attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was a remote area; (2) their safety during the inventory and photography of the seized drugs was threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of the accused or any person/s acting for and in his/her behalf; (3) the elected officials themselves were involved in the punishable acts sought to be apprehended; (4) earnest efforts to secure the presence of a DOJ or media representative and an elected public official within the period required under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code prove futile through no fault of the arresting officers who face the threat of being charged with arbitrary detention; or (5) time constraints and urgency of the anti-drug operations, which often rely on tips of confidential assets, prevented the law enforcers from obtaining the presence of the required witnesses even before the offenders could escape. The prosecution should also show that an earnest effort to secure the attendance of the necessary witnesses was made.
Section 1 (A.1.6) of the Chain of Custody Implementing Rules and Regulations states that "[a] representative of the [National Prosecution Service] is anyone from its employees, while the media representative is any media practitioner. The elected public official is any incumbent public official regardless of the place where he/she is elected." The presence of these three (3) persons required by law can be ensured in a planned operation such as a buy-bust operation.
Here, the buy-bust operation was arranged and scheduled in advance. The police officers formed an apprehending team, coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), prepared the buy-bust money, and held a briefing. Yet, they failed to ensure that a DOJ representative and a media practitioner, would witness the inventory and photographing of the seized drugs.
Securing the presence of these persons is not impossible. Indeed, it is not enough for the apprehending officers to merely mark the seized pack of shabu; the buy-bust team must also conduct a physical inventory and take photographs of the confiscated item in the presence of these persons required by law. Relevantly, w1der the Revised PNP Manual on Anti-Illegal Drugs Operations and Investigation, on specific rules and procedures for planned operations such as a buy-bust operation, the designated Team Leader is required "to see to it that he has the contact numbers of representatives from the DOJ, Media and any Local Elected Official in the area for inventory purposes as required under Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165."
The OSG suggests that the absence of the DOJ and media representative may be overlooked, explaining that "this predicament is obviously beyond the control of the arresting team who had no choice but to proceed with the tasks at hand."
The Court cannot agree to such proposition.
x x x x
Indeed, the prosecution's unjustified non-compliance with the safeguards of the chain of custody constitutes a fatal procedural flaw that destroys the reliability of the corpus delicti. (citations omitted, emphasis supplied)
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 2-15; penned by CA Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, now a member of the Court, with Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Mario V. Lopez, concurring.
2 CA rollo, pp. 47-55, penned by Presiding Judge Nadine Jessica Corazon J . Fama.
3 Records, p. 1.
4 Id. at 52-53.
5 Id. at 108.
6 Id. at 76.
7 TSN, November 18, 2014, pp. 3-5.
8 TSN, December 4, 2014, p. 5.
9 TSN, February 12, 2015, pp. 5-7.
10 Supra note 8 at 6.
11 TSN, March 17, 2016, p. 7.
12 Records, p. 270.
13 CA rollo, pp. 54-55.
14Rollo, p. 11.
15 Id. at 14.
16 Id. at 15.
17 Id. at 23-24.
18 Id. at 34-36.
19 Id. at 25-27.
20 CA rollo, p. 32.
21 Id. at 32-44.
22 Id. at 60-101.
23 See People of the Philippines v. Hilario, G.R. No. 210610, January 11, 2018.
24People of the Philippines v. Año, G.R. No. 230070, March 14, 2018.
25People of the Philippines v. Ubungen, G.R. No. 225497, July 23, 2018.
26People of the Philippines v. Guillergan, 797 Phil. 775, 785 (2016).
27 Supra note 8 at 2-7.
28 Records p. 231, Exh. "Q".
29People of the Philippines v. Angeles, G.R. No. 218947, June 20, 2018.
30 G.R. No. 234033, July 30, 2018.
31 G.R. No. 219955, February 5, 2018.
32People of the Philippines v. Balubal, supra note 30.
33See records, pp. 75-76.
34 Records, p. 226; Joint Affidavit of Arrest, Exh. "B".
35 TSN, February 12, 2015, pp. 5-6.
36 Id. at 6-7.
37 TSN, February 11, 2016, pp. 9-10.
38 Sec. 21, Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165, August 30, 2002.
39 G.R. No. 234048, April 23, 2018.
40People of the Philippines v. Lim, G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.
41People of the Philippines v. Ramos, G.R. No. 233744, February 28, 2018.
42People of the Philippines v. Andrada, G.R. No. 232299, June 20, 2018.