THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 219560, July 01, 2020
JUANDOM PALENCIA Y DE ASIS, PETITIONER, V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
LEONEN, J.:
Courts must strictly scrutinize violations of Republic Act No. 9165 when only minuscule amounts of dangerous drugs were seized from the accused. Additionally, in assessing the prosecution's evidence, courts should include the scale of operations and the government unit involved in an anti-narcotics operation. If the amount of drugs seized is disproportionate to the scale of operations, courts should not readily rely on the presumption of regularity accorded to the arresting and seizing officers.
This Court resolves the Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assailing the Decision2 and Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Regional Trial Court Judgment4 finding Juandom Palencia y De Asis (Palencia) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of possessing dangerous drugs, punished under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
On April 22, 2008, Palencia was charged with possession of dangerous drugs. The accusatory portion of the Information against him reads:
That on or about the 21st day of April, 2008, in the City of Dumaguete, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, not being then authorized by law, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously possess one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.01 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, otherwise known as "SHABU", a dangerous drug.
Contrary to Sec. 11, Art. II of R.A. 9165.5cralawlawlibrary
SPECIMEN SUBMITTED:
- One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with markings "JP-P" 4-21-08 containing 0.01 gram of white crystalline substance.
xxx xxx xxx
PURPOSE OF LABORATORY EXAMINATION:
To determine the presence of Dangerous Drugs under RA 9165.
FINDINGS:
Qualitative examination conducted on specimen A gave POSITIVE result to the tests for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug under RA 9165.xxx xxx xxx
CONCLUSION:
Specimen A contains Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug under RA 9165.29 (Emphasis in the original)
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the Court hereby finds the accused Juandom Palencia y De Asis GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of illegal possession of one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic containing 0.01 gram of shabu in violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum term to fourteen (14) years as maximum term and to pay a fine of Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (P400,000.00).
The one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.01 gram of shabu is hereby confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government and to be disposed of in accordance with law.
SO ORDERED46 (Emphasis in the original)
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The assailed October 24, 2011 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 30 of Dumaguete City in Criminal Case No. 19032 convicting accused-appellant Juandum (sic) Palencia for violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.54 (Emphasis in the original)
SECTION 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.
Furthermore, the order of the trial court was a patent nullity. In resolving the pending incidents of the motion to transfer and motion to quash, the trial court should not have allowed petitioners to collaterally attack the validity of A.O. Nos. 113-95 and 104-96. We have ruled time and again that the constitutionality or validity of laws, orders, or such other rules with the force of law cannot be attacked collaterally. There is a legal presumption of validity of these laws and rules. Unless a law or rule is annulled in a direct proceeding, the legal presumption of its validity stands.79 (Citation omitted)
Preliminarily, Vivas' attempt to assail the constitutionality of Section 30 of R.A. No. 7653 constitutes collateral attack on the said provision of law. Nothing is more settled than the rule that the constitutionality of a statute cannot be collaterally attacked as constitutionality issues must be pleaded directly and not collaterally. A collateral attack on a presumably valid law is not permissible. Unless a law or rule is annulled in a direct proceeding, the legal presumption of its validity stands.81 (Citations omitted)
- The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of legislation n a friendly, non-adversary proceeding, declining because to decide such questions "is legitimate only in the last resort, and as a necessity in the determination of real, earnest and vital controversy between individuals. It never was the thought that, by means of a friendly suit, a party beaten in the legislature could transfer to the courts an inquiry as to the constitutionality of the legislative act."
- The Court will not "anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it." "It is not the habit of the Court to decide questions of a constitutional nature unless absolutely necessary to a decision of the case."
- The Court will not "formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied."
- The Court will not pass upon a constitutional question, although properly presented by the record, if there is also present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of. This rule has found most varied application. Thus, if a case can be decided on either of two grounds, one involving a constitutional question, the other a question of statutory construction or general law, the Court will decide only the latter. Appeals from the highest court of a state challenging its decision of a question under the Federal Constitution are frequently dismissed because the judgment can be sustained on an independent state ground.
- The Court will not pass upon the validity of a statute upon complaint of one who fails to show that he is injured by its operation. Among the many applications of this rule, none is more striking than the denial of the right of challenge to one who lacks a personal or property right. Thus, the challenge by a public official interested only in the performance of his official duty will not be entertained. In Fairchild v. Hughes, the Court affirmed the dismissal of a suit brought by a citizen who sought to have the Nineteenth Amendment declared unconstitutional. In Massachusetts v. Mellon, the challenge of the federal Maternity Act was not entertained, although made by the Commonwealth on behalf of all its citizens.
- The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits.
- "When the validity of an act of the Congress is drawn in question, and even if a serious doubt of constitutionality is raised, it is a cardinal principle that this Court will first ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the question may be avoided."87 (Citations omitted)
The foregoing "pillars" of limitation of judicial review, summarized in Ashwander v. TVA from different decisions of the United States Supreme Court, can be encapsulated into the following categories:
- that there be absolute necessity of deciding a case
- that rules of constitutional law shall be formulated only as required by the facts of the case
- that judgment may not be sustained on some other ground
- that there be actual injury sustained by the party by reason of the operation of the statute
- that the parties are not in estoppel
- that the Court upholds the presumption of constitutionality.89 (Emphasis in the original)
SECTION 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant arid the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
- Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under Section 12, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court and by prevailing jurisprudence;
- Seizure of evidence in "plain view," the elements of which are: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
(a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties;
(b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be where they are;
(c) the evidence must be immediately apparent, and
(d) "plain view" justified mere seizure of evidence without further search;- Search of a moving vehicle. Highly regulated by the government, the vehicle's inherent mobility reduces expectation of privacy especially when its transit in public thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion amounting to probable cause that the occupant committed a criminal activity;
- Consented warrantless search;
- Customs search;
- Stop and Frisk; and
- Exigent and Emergency Circumstances.92 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
SECTION 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.
"Stop and frisk" searches (sometimes referred to as Terry searches) are necessary for law enforcement. That is, law enforcers should be given the legal arsenal to prevent the commission of offenses. However, this should be balanced with the need to protect the privacy of citizens in accordance with Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution.
The balance lies in the concept of "suspiciousness" present in the situation where the police officer finds himself or herself in. This may be undoubtedly based on the experience of the police officer. Experienced police officers have personal experience dealing with criminals and criminal behavior. Hence, they should have the ability to discern — based on facts that they themselves observe — whether an individual is acting in a suspicious manner. Clearly, a basic criterion would be that the police officer, with his or her personal knowledge, must observe the facts leading to the suspicion of an illicit act.99 (Citation omitted)
SECTION 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. — In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.
An accused has in his favor the presumption of innocence which the Bill of Rights guarantees. Unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt, he must be acquitted. This reasonable doubt standard is demanded by the due process clause of the Constitution which protects the accused from conviction except upon proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, and unless it discharges that burden the accused need not even offer evidence in his behalf, and he would be entitled to an acquittal. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not, of course, mean such degree of proof as excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. The conscience must be satisfied that the accused is responsible for the offense charged.115 (Citations omitted)
In drug cases, the dangerous drug itself is the very corpus delicti of the violation of the law. Consequently, compliance with the rule on chain of custody over the seized illegal drugs is crucial in any prosecution that follows a buy-bust operation. The rule is imperative, as it is essential that the prohibited drug recovered from the suspect is the very same substance offered in court as exhibit; and that the identity of said drug is established with the same unwavering exactitude as that requisite to make a finding of guilt.120cralawlawlibrary
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into 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.122 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
[F]irst, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.124 (Emphasis in the original, citation omitted)
[Atty. Sedillo] Q Now tell this court why did you use a masking tape and a ball pen instead of using a pentel pen with a small point and have it written on the sachet itself? Why the masking tape where it can be easily removed and replaced? Or is it part of your operational guideline to use a masking tape and not pentel pens on the sachets where it cannot be erased?
A We have ball pens where it cannot be erased also, we just used the tape as our usual practice.
Q Yes, the ball pen cannot be erased but the masking tape can be easily removed, right?
A Yes, sir.
Q It can be easily removed from the plastic?
A Yes, sir.
Q It can be?
A Yes, sir.131
Court- Q- During the inventory, when you looked at the sachet, all these markings were already there? A- Yes sir, the markings were already there. I checked the inventory but I cannot remember how big the evidence was. Q- These markings were already there? A- Yes sir, there were already markings. Q- You did not know who made those markings? A- I cannot remember who made them. Q- These markings JP-P 4-21-08, these were already in the sachet? A- Yes, they were already there but the size of the evidence, I cannot remember. Q- How about these markings A D-072-08, these were already there? A- Yes sir. Q- These markings A D-072-08 were also there already on the sachet? A- Yes, it was already attached.135
Trial courts should meticulously consider the factual intricacies of cases involving violations of Republic Act No. 9165. All details that factor into an ostensibly uncomplicated and barefaced narrative must be scrupulously considered. Courts must employ heightened scrutiny, consistent with the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, in evaluating cases involving miniscule amounts of drugs. These can be readily planted and tampered.137cralawlawlibrary
Q So since the NBI officers only retrieved a cell phone and [the] proceeds of the sale of the "bihag", tell this court what happened thereafter? A The one armed person walked away going outside. Q Now, tell this court what happened to that person, to that armed person? A Minutes later, he came back and when he was already near Juandom, he picked up something. Q And what was that something and where did he pick up that something? A He just pretended to pick up something and said, "Here it is, here it is." Q And did you have an occasion to see what he said, "Here it is, here it is?" A What he said was it was shabu. Q So after that incident where that officer who left and came back later and pretending to pick up something and said, "Here it is, here it is," and said that it was shabu, can you tell this court what was the reaction of your brother Juandom Palencia? A Juandom was shouting saying, "Planting, planting."140
Section 86. Transfer, Absorption, and Integration of All Operating Units on Illegal Drugs into the PDEA and Transitory Provisions. — The Narcotics Group of the PNP, the Narcotics Division of the NBI and the Customs Narcotics Interdiction Unit are hereby abolished; however they shall continue with the performance of their task as detail service with the PDEA, subject to screening, until such time that the organizational structure of the Agency is fully, operational and the number of graduates of the PDEA Academy is sufficient to do the task themselves: Provided, That such personnel who are affected shall have the option of either being integrated into the PDEA or remain with their original mother agencies and shall, thereafter, be immediately reassigned to other units therein by the head of such agencies. Such personnel who are transferred, absorbed and integrated in the PDEA shall be extended appointments to positions similar in rank, salary, and other emoluments and privileges granted to their respective positions in their original mother agencies.
The transfer, absorption and integration of the different offices and units provided for in this Section shall take effect within eighteen (18) months from the effectivity of this Act: Provided, That personnel absorbed and on detail service shall be given until five (5) years to finally decide to join the PDEA.
Nothing in this Act shall mean a diminution of the investigative powers of the NBI and the PNP on all other crimes as provided for in their respective organic laws: Provided, however, That when the investigation being conducted by the NBI, PNP or any ad hoc anti-drug task force is found to be a violation of any of the, provisions of this Act, the PDEA shall be the lead agency. The NBI, PNP or any of the task force shall immediately transfer the same; to the PDEA: Provided, further, That the NBI, PNP and the Bureau of Customs shall maintain close coordination with the PDEA on all drug related matters.
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.144cralawlawlibrary
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 4-36.
2 Id. at 37-55. The Decision dated November 25, 2014 in CA-G.R. CR No. 01827 was penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez and concurred in by Associate Justices Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap of the Special Nineteenth Division, Court of Appeals, Cebu City.
3 Id. at 56-58. The Resolution dated June 23, 2015 in CA-G.R. CR No. 01827 was penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez and concurred in by Associate Justices Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap of the Former Special Nineteenth Division, Court of Appeals, Cebu City.
4 CA rollo, pp. 12-21. The Judgment dated October 24, 2011 and docketed as Criminal Case No. 19032 was penned by Judge Rafael Crescencio O. Tan, Jr.
5Rollo, p. 38.
6 Id. at 39.
7 Id. at 39 and RTC records, p. 11.
8 Id. SPO1 Germodo was sometimes referred to as SPO2 Germodo.
9 RTC records, p. 11.
10 TSN March 2, 2011, p. 5.
11 RTC records, p. 11.
12 Id. at 11 and rollo, p. 40.
13 Id.
14 TSN March 16, 2011, p. 9.
15 RTC records, p. 11.
16 TSN March 16, 2011, p. 9.
17 TSN March 2, 2011, p. 10.
18 TSN April 20, 2011, p. 2.
19 TSN March 23, 2011, p. 3.
20 TSN May 4, 2011, pp. 2-3.
21 TSN March 30, 2011, p. 8.
22 TSN April 20, 2011, pp. 4-5
23 TSN May 4, 2011, pp. 3-5.
24 TSN March 23, 2011, p. 6.
25 TSN March 2, 2011, pp. 13-14 and RTC records, p. 29.
26 RTC records, p. 20.
27 TSN March 9, 2011, p. 8.
28 Id. at 10.
29 RTC records, p. 37.
30 CA rollo, p. 14.
31 Id. at 14 and TSN July 5, 2011, pp. 5-7.
32 Id.
33 Id.
34 Id. at 15.
35 TSN July 20, 2011, pp. 5-8.
36 Id. at 7.
37 Id. at 7-8.
38 Id. at 9 and 17.
39 Id. at 9.
40 TSN August 9, 2011, pp. 3-5.
41 Id. at 5-6.
42 CA rollo, pp. 12-21.
43 Id. at 16-17.
44 Id. at 17.
45 Id. at 18.
46 Id. at 20.
47 RTC records, p. 265. The Order was penned by Judge Rafael Crescendo C. Tan, Jr.
48 Id. at 255-256.
49 Id. at 266.
50Rollo, pp. 37-55.
51 Id. at 47.
52 Id. at 50-51.
53 Id. at 52-53.
54 Id. at 55.
55 CA rollo, pp. 117-123.
56Rollo, pp. 56-58.
57 Id. at 4-36.
58 Id. at 9-13.
59 Id. at 10.
60 Id. at 13-15.
61 Id. at 18-19.
62 Id. at 21-22.
63 Id. at 23-32.
64 Id. at 30.
65 Id. at 66-77.
66 Id. at 67-69.
67 Id. at 69-70.
68 Id. at 74.
69 Id. at 92-104
70Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139, 139-140 (1936) [Per J. Laurel, En Banc].
71Planters Products, Inc. v. Fertiphil Corp., 572 Phil. 270, 291 (2008) [Per J. Reyes, R.T., Third Division].
72 Id. at 291 citing Tropical Homes, Inc. v. National Housing Authority, 236 Phil. 580 (1987) [Per J. Gutierrez, Jr., En Banc].
73Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities v. Secretary of Education, 97 Phil. 806, 809 (1955) [Per J. Bengzon, En Banc].
74Vivas v. The Monetary Board of Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, 716 Phil. 132, 153 (2013) [Per J. Mendoza, Third Division].
75 128 Phil. 328 (1967) [Per J. Angeles, En Banc].
76Go v. Echavez, 765 Phil. 410, 424 (2015) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
77San Miguel Brewery, Inc. v. Magno, 128 Phil. 328, 335 (1967) [Per J. Angeles, En Banc].
78 514 Phil. 307 (2005) [Per J. Corona, Third Division].
79Tan v. Bausch Lomb, Inc., 514 Phil. 307, 316 (2005) [Per J. Corona, Third Division].
80 716 Phil. 132 (2013) [Per J. Mendoza, Third Division].
81 Id. at 153.
82Philippine National Bank v. Palma, 503 Phil. 917, 918 (2005) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division].
83San Miguel Brewery, Inc. v. Magno, 128 Phil. 328, 335 (1967) [Per J. Angeles, En Banc].
84NAWASA v. Reyes, 130 Phil. 939, 947 (1968) [Per J. Angeles, En Banc].
85Gios-Samar, Inc. v. Department of Transportation and Communications, G.R. No. 217158, March 12, 2019, [Per J. Jardeleza, En Banc] citing ASSOCIATE JUSTICE VICENTE V. MENDOZA, JUDICIAL REVIEW OF CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS 89 (2004).
86 297 U.S. 288 (1936).
87Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 347-348 (1936) as cited in Gios-Samar, Inc. v. Department of Transportation and Communications, G.R. No. 217158, March 12, 2019, [Per J. Jardeleza, En Banc].
88 460 Phil. 830 (2003) [Per J. Carpio Morales, En Banc].
89 Id. at 923.
90 In the prayer in petitioner's Memorandum (RTC records, pp. 228-240) before the Regional Trial Court, he asked to be acquitted due to the prosecution's purported failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He did not put in issue the unconstitutionality of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations.
91 CONST., art. III, sec. 3(2).
92People v. Aruta, 351 Phil. 868, 879-880 (1998) [Per J. Romero, Third Division].
93 347 Phil. 462 (1997) [Per J. Davide, Jr., En Banc].
94 Id. at 479-480.
95Sindac v. People, 794 Phil. 421, 429-430 (2016) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, First Division].
96Malacat v. Court of Appeals, 347 Phil. 462, 480 (1997) [Per J. Davide, Jr., En Banc]; People v. Racho, 640 Phil. 669, 676 (2010) [Per J. Nachura, Second Division]; and Sanchez v. People, 747 Phil. 552, 569 (2014) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].
97People v. Tudtud, 458 Phil 752, 773 (2003) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
98 740 Phil. 212, 229 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
99 Id. at 229-230.
100 345 Phil. 632 (1997) [Per J. Panganiban, Third division].
101 Id. at 638.
102 330 Phil. 811 (1996) [Per J. Romero, Second Division].
103 Id. at. 815.
104People v. Cogaed, 740 Phil. 212, 231 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
105 G.R. No. 211214, March 20, 2019, [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
106 643 Phil. 577 (2010) [Per J. Carpio Morales, Third Division].
107 C.J. Bersamin, Dissenting Opinion in Esquillo v. People, 643 Phil. 577, 609 (2010) [Per J. Carpio Morales, Third Division].
108People v. Cogaed, 740 Phil. 212, 232 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
109 TSN March 16, 2011, pp. 5-6. See also TSN March 20, 2011, p. 6.
110 Id. at 6-8.
111Rollo, pp. 47-48 and CA rollo, pp. 16-17.
112 CONST., art. III, sec. 1 provides:
SECTION 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
113 CONST., art. III, sec. 14(2) provides:
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
114 320 Phil. 324 (1995) [Per J. Davide, Jr., First Division].
115 Id. at 335.
116Macayan, Jr. v. People, 756 Phil. 202 (2015) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
117Anyayahan v. People, G.R. No. 229787, June 20, 2018, [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division] citing People v. Bio, 753 Phil. 730, 736 (2015) [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division].
118People v. Lorenzo, 633 Phil. 393, 402-403 (2010) [Per J. Perez, Second Division].
119 G.R. No. 240596, April 3, 2019, [Per J. Caguioa, Second Division].
120 Id.
121 576 Phil. 576 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
122 Id. at 587.
123 639 Phil. 134 (2010) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].
124 Id. at 144-145 citing People v. Kamad, 624 Phil. 289 (2010) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
125 612 Phil. 1238 (2009) [Per J. Carpio, First Division].
126 Id. at 1245.
127 590 Phil, 214 (2008) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
128 Id. at 241.
129 TSN March 16, 2011, pp. 9 and 25-26.
130 Id. at 9.
131 Id. at 25-26.
132 Id. at 9.
133 TSN March 2, 2011, p. 10.
134 TSN March 9, 2011, p. 8.
135 TSN March 23, 2011, pp. 8-9.
136 741 Phil. 78 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
137People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78, 100 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
138 RTC records, p. 11.
139 TSN March 16, 2011, pp. 23-24.
140 TSN July 20, 2011, pp. 7-8.
141 Republic Act No. 9165 (2002), sec. 82 provides:
SECTION 82. Creation of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). — To carry out the provisions of this Act, the PDEA, which serves as the implementing arm of the Board, and shall be responsible for the efficient and effective law enforcement of all the provisions on any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical as provided in this Act.
142 Republic Act No. 9165 (2002), sec. 84(a) provides:
SECTION 84. Powers and Duties of the PDEA. — The PDEA shall:
(a) Implement or cause the efficient and effective implementation of the national drug control strategy formulated by the Board thereby carrying out a national drug campaign program which shall include drug law enforcement, control and prevention campaign with the assistance of concerned government Agencies[.]
143 Republic Act No. 157 (1947), sec. 1(a).
144People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78, 100 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary