G.R. No. 206965 (2017)

[T]he 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.149 (Citation omitted)

This is governed by Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165:150

Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof;

(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 under oath by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued within twenty-four (24) hours after the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of the 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 on the completed forensic laboratory examination on the same within the next twenty-four (24) hours;

(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: Provider,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[.] (Emphasis supplied)

Compliance with the preconditions provided for under Section 21 cannot be overstated.151 It excludes the chances that the evidence may be planted, contaminated, or tampered in any way.152 Thus, as signified by its mandatory terms, strict conformity to the procedures in handling the seized articles and drugs is important and the prosecution must prove their acquiescence in any case.153

Non-conformity equates to failure in proving the identity of the corpus delicti, which is an important element of the charge involving illegal possession of illicit drugs.154 Hence, even doing acts which apparently nears compliance but do not really conform to the requirements do not suffice.155 By failing to prove an element of the charge, non-conformity with the law will, therefore, cause the acquittal of the accused.156

This Court had the occasion to discuss the consequences of the arresting team's failure to comply with Section 21(1) of Republic Act No. 9165 in this Court's recent cases.

In People v. Jaafar,157 the accused was acquitted of the charge for the illegal sale of 0.0604 grams of shabu, which was seized from him through a buy-bust operation. While the police officers marked the confiscated items, the physical inventory was not done in the presence of the accused or any of the mandated third-party witnesses. Also, no photograph was taken. In closing, this Court held that non-compliance with the mandatory preconditions of Section 21 creates doubt on the integrity of the seized shabu.158

In People v. Saunar,159 accused Delia Saunar was acquitted of the charge for illegal sale of 0.0526 grams and 0.0509 grams of dangerous drugs. This Court held that the prosecution failed to strictly conform to the rigorous standards provided for under Republic Act No. 9165, as amended, causing serious doubt on the origin and identity of the seized drugs.

In Saunar, the marking and inventory were done only when the team already reached Camp Simeon Ola and not immediately after confiscation.1âwphi1 This Court inferred that any of the arresting officers could have taken custody of the seized drugs during transit, thereby concluding that there was a high probability that the evidence was tampered with or altered. While the belated marking and inventory were done in the presence of third-party witnesses, there was no evidence showing that the acts were done in the presence of the accused or any of her representatives. More telling was the fact that none of the third-party witnesses was presented to testify in court. Furthermore, no photograph was taken.160

In People v. Sagana,161 photos of the seized items were taken only when the accused was already in the police station. The belated photograph taking was not simultaneously done with the marking and inventory, which was conducted immediately after the items were seized.162 Also, there was no third-party witness present when the items were seized and inventoried.163

Accused Sagana was acquitted of the charge for illegal sale of shabu due to the evident lapses in the chain of custody that cast doubt on the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti and the arresting team's lack of justifiable reason to deviate from the mandated procedures.164

While the chain of custody has been a crucial issue which led to acquittals in drugs cases, this Court has still ruled that non-conformity with the mandated procedure in handling the seized drugs does not automatically mean that the seized items' identity was compromised, which necessarily leads to an acquittal.165 The Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 provide some flexibility166 with the addition of a proviso which reads:

Section 21: Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment...

(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as 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)

The saving mechanism included in the implementing rules guarantees that not every case of non-observance will irreversibly prejudice the prosecution's cause. However, to merit the application of the saving clause, the prosecution should acknowledge and explain the deviations they committed. Moreover, the prosecution should also prove that the integrity and evidentiary worth of the confiscated evidence was maintained.167

In other words, the arresting officers' non-compliance with Section 21 is not fatal, provided that that there is a justifiable reason for their deviation and that the evidentiary worth of the seized drugs or articles was preserved. Non-conformity with the mandated procedures will not make the arrest of the accused illegal or the items seized inadmissible as evidence. What matters most is that the integrity and evidentiary worth of the seized articles were maintained since these will be used in resolving the guilt or innocence of the accused.168

Pangan's main point of contention rests on her absence during the inventory and marking of the confiscated articles.169

This Court underscores that from the start, Pangan already insisted that she did not know the contents of the delivery.170 Surprisingly, when she testified in her defense, she disclosed that when the two (2) men allegedly "grabbed the package from her,"171 they grappled for its possession for about two (2) to three (3) minutes.172 Hence, the way she violently reacted belied her claim of innocence. As emphasized by the trial court, "She fought tooth and nail for [the] possession of the Fastpak pouch . . . with the police officer because a revelation of its contents would surely incriminate her."173

The police officers acknowledged their breach, offering a justifiable reason why they had to dispense with Pangan's presence during the search, inventory, and photographing. The police narrated how Pangan became "uncontrollable."174 This is a fact corroborated by the accused herself when she testified that she "struggled to free herself [and] she accidentally swiped a bottle in front of her store that fell and broke into pieces."175 Therefore, Pangan's aggressive actuations urged the police officers to lock her up in the vehicle for the search to smoothly proceed.

The attendance of third-party witnesses during buy-bust operations and during time of seizures is to prevent the planting of evidence or frame-up.176 Even though neither Pangan nor any of her representatives was present during the marking, inventory, and photographing, the police officers substantially complied with the rules as media representatives and barangay officials were present during the search.177

Barangay Kagawad Beluso, who appeared as one (1) of the witnesses for the prosecution, confirmed that she was with Barangay Kagawad Lara and Barangay Captain Andrada during the search. She testified that the police officers found the sealed Fastpak package on top of Pangan's table, which was inside the store. She corroborated the testimonies of other prosecution witnesses narrating that when the Noli Me Tangere book was opened, three (3) sachets of suspected shabu were concealed between its pages. She added that the police officers found another sachet of illicit drugs in Pangan's drawer.178

Barangay Kagawad Beluso also identified in court the Fastpak package, the Noli Me Tangere book, and the additional small sachet as the articles she was referring to in her statements. She verified that an inventory of the items was prepared by the police which she and the other witnesses signed.179

Even radio reporter Bulana, who testified for the defense, mentioned that he was one (1) of the witnesses.180 He disclosed that at around 4:00 p.m. of April 10, 2003, they gathered with the arresting team at Dinggoy Roxas Civic Center.181 He attested that after seeing the pre-arranged signal from one (1) of the police officers, they went to Asis Street where he saw PO1 Carillo and PO1 Bernardez enter Pangan's store, trying to grab a "bundle" from the accused.182 Thereafter, Pangan was "forcefully" brought outside the store and was eventually handcuffed inside a Radio Mindanao Network vehicle.183

Furthermore, even assuming that the police officers failed to strictly conform to the procedures provided for under Section 21, the accused may still be adjudged guilty of the charge provided that the chain of custody remains uninterrupted.184

In this case, the prosecution was able to establish the necessary links in the chain of custody from the time the sachets of illicit drugs were confiscated until they were forwarded to the laboratory for examination and presented as evidence in court.

After its seizure, the four (4) plastic sachets were immediately given to SPO1 Liberia for marking. SPO1 Liberia also prepared the inventory, which was duly signed by the third-party witnesses present during the search.185

PO1 Carillo took photographs of the search and the confiscated articles. Thereafter, the seized items were forwarded to the trial court which issued the warrant.1âwphi1 Upon P/S Insp. Batiles' request, the trial court released the seized items for laboratory testing. The articles were received by SPO1 Alberto Espura of the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory in Camp Claudio, Iloilo City. P/C Insp. Baldevieso confirmed through a chemical analysis that the contents of the sachets yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu as evinced by Chemistry Report No. D-145.186

The confiscated drugs which were examined in the laboratory were offered as evidence in the trial court and were identified by PO1 Carillo, Barangay Kagawad Beluso, and SPO4 Revisa as the same ones seized from Pangan during the lawful search.187

Apart from Pangan's unsupported claims, no cogent proof was shown to attest that the seized items were tampered in any way. Based on the totality of the prosecution's evidence, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were never compromised.

The rationale behind Section 21 is to shield the accused from malicious assertions of guilt from abusive police officers. However, this provision cannot be utilized to frustrate legitimate efforts of law enforcers. Minor deviations from the mandated procedure in handling the corpus delicti must not absolve a guilty defendant.188

III

In a further attempt to evade liability, accused Pangan denies the presence of the additional sachet of shabu found hidden in her drawer, asserting that "PO1 Carillo could have planted it there because he has a bad record."189

It is settled that in proceedings involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, the testimonies of police officers as prosecution witnesses are given weight for it is assumed that they have perforaied their functions in a regular manner. Thus, this presumption stands except in cases when there is evidence to the contrary or proof imputing ill-motive on their part, which is wanting in this case. Pangan failed to adduce any evidence which could overturn the well-entrenched presumption in favor of the police officers.190

Pangan's denial was essentially weak and cannot overcome the prosecution witnesses' positive identification of her as the perpetrator of the charge. Considering that a denial is self-serving, it merits no credence in law when uncorroborated by any clear and persuasive proof.191

Therefore, this Court upholds Pangan's guilt for possession of a considerable amount of 14.16 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. As correctly imposed by the Regional Trial Court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals, the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of ₱400,000.00 are warranted and are in accordance with law.192

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Court of Appeals September 21, 2012 Decision in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00747 affirming the Regional Trial Court's conviction of accused-appellant Emma Bofill Pangan of illegal possession of dangerous drugs in violation of Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairperson

On leave
ALEXANDER G. GESMUNDO*
Associate Justice

A T T E S T A T I O N

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decisionhad been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

Pursuant to the Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
Chief Justice

Footnotes

* On leave.

1 People v. Dimaano, G.R. No. 174481, February 10, 2016, <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.htm!?file=/jurisprudence/2016/february2016/174481.pdf> 12 [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].

2 Id.

3 CA rollo, p. 117.

4 Rollo, pp. 3-17. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando and concurred in by Associate Justices Carmelita Salandanan-Manahan and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles of the Twentieth Division, Court of Appeals, Cebu City.

5 CA rollo, pp. 47-63. The Decision, dated April 18, 2007 and docketed as Crim. Case No. C-093-03, was penned by Judge Delano F. Villaruz of Branch 16, Regional Trial Court, Roxas City.

6 Rep. Act No. 9165, sec. 11 provide:

Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (₱500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (₱10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof:

Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows:

(1) Life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos (₱400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (₱500,000.00), if the quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu" is ten (10) grams or more but less than fifty (50) grams[.]

7 See CA rollo, p. 47. The Information was filed by Assistant City Prosecutor Eduardo D. Delfin.

8 Rollo, p. 4.

9 Id.

10 Id.

11 Id.

12 Id. at 5.

13 Id. at 6.

14 See CA rollo, p. 48. The RTC Decision referred to him as Captain Batiles instead of P/SInsp Batiles.

15 Rollo, p. 5. He was a rebuttal-witness for the prosecution.

16 See CA rollo, p. 48. One of PO1 Carillo's functions includes the "surveillance, monitoring and gathering information about illegal drug operations in Roxas City."

17 Rollo, p. 5.

18 Id.

19 Id.

20 Id.

21 Id.

22 Id.

23 Id. at 5-6. "[C]omposed of members of Capiz PPO Intelligence Section, the First Mobile Group and the Military Intelligence, Group 6."

24 See CA rollo, p. 49, RTC Decision. Name spelled as PO1 Italia.

25 The complete names of PO2 Escultero, PO1 Etalla, PO1 Cordovero, and PO1 Bernardez are not mentioned.

26 Rollo, p. 6.

27 Id.

28 See CA rollo, p. 82, Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee. He was also pertained as PO1 Bernaldez.

29 Rollo, p. 4.

30 Id.

31 Id.

32 Id.

33 Id.

34 Id.

35 Barangay Captain Andrada's complete name is not mentioned.

36 CA rollo, p. 51.

37 Rollo, p. 6.

38 Id.

39 Id.

40 Id. at 6-7.

41 Id at 7.

42 See CA rollo, p. 62. "Cutting the tape, the police discovered inside the book between the cut portions of pages 45 to 119[,] three sachets of suspected methamphetamine hydrochloride..."

43 Rollo, p. 7.

44 Id.

45 Id.

46 See CA rollo, p. 50, RTC Decision. Pertained to as "SPO3 Libria" and the complete name is not mentioned.

47 Rollo, p. 7, CA Decision.

48 Id.

49 Id.

50 Id.

51 Id.

52 Id.

53 Id.

54 Id. at 7-8.

55 Id.

56 Id.

57 Id. See RTC Decision on p. 53 of CA rollo which refers to the same as Chemistry Report No. D-143-05. However on p. 52 of the same decision, it was referred as Chemistry Report No. D-145-03.

58 CA rollo, p. 54.

59 Rollo, p. 8.

60 Id.

61 Id.

62 Id. at 8-9.

63 Id.

64 Id. at 8-9.

65 Id.

66 CA rollo, p. 55.

67 Rollo, p. 8.

68 Id. at 9.

69 See CA rollo, p. 56.

Based on the testimony of Pangan, she disclosed that prior to her relationship with Tupaz, she had been living with one Noel Pangan (Noel) who was allegedly charged of illegal possession of drugs. In that case, Pangan executed an affidavit stating that she was the wife of Noel and her name appearing therein was "Emma Bofill Pangan."

70 Rollo, p. 8.

71 Id.

72 See CA rollo, p. 55.

73 Rollo, p. 9.

74 CA rollo, pp. 47-63.

75 Id. at 62.

76 Id. at 59.

77 Id. at 58.

78 Id. at 58-59.

79 Id. at 59.

80 Id. at 60.

81 Id. at 61.

82 Id. at 60.

83 Id.

84 Id. at 62. "EBP-1," "EBP-2," "EBP-3," and "EBP-4" correspondingly weighed 5.03 grams, 4.09 grams, 5.02 grams, and 0.02 grams.

85 Id. at 62.

86 Rollo, p. 12.

87 Id. at 3-17.

88 Id. at 10.

89 Id. at 14.

90 Id. at 13-14.

91 Id. at 14.

92 Id. at 16.

93 Id. at 1.

94 Id. at 19-20.

95 Id. at 18.

96 Id. at 22.

97 Id. at 24-28, Manifestation of the Office of the Solicitor General and rollo, pp. 30-32, Manifestation of A the accused. See also rollo, p. 34 where this Court noted the Manifestations of the parties through a Resolution dated November 11, 2013.

98 Id. at 37-48. Three indorsements with attachments were included as part of the Rollo, all pertaining to a request for regular hospital referral of Accused-Appellant Pangan to Rizal Medical Center for further examination and treatment of her T/C Myoma Uteri with Afbnormal] U[terine] Breeding]. Through a Resolution dated March 9, 2016 (Rollo, pp. 49-51), this Court noted the indorsements. Similarly, this Court also approved (Rollo, pp. 52-57) the request for Pangan's outside medical referral subject to certain conditions.

99 CA rollo, p. 42.

100 Id. at 41-42.

101 Id. at 43.

102 Id.

103 Id.

104 Id. at 43-44.

105 Id.

106 Id. at 76-97.

107 Id. at 87.

108 Id. at 89.

109 Id. at 90.

110 Id.

111 Id. at 93.

112 Id.

113 People v. Lagman, 593 Phil. 617, 625 (2008) [Per J. Carpio-Morales, En Banc].

114 CA rollo, p. 58.

115 Id.

116 Id. at 58-59.

117 Id. at 55.

118 Id. at 51.

119 Id.

120 Id.

121 Id. at 56.

122 Id. at 51.

123 Id.

124 Id.

125 Id. at 56.

126 Id. at 49.

127 Id.

128 Id.

129 Id. at 50.

130 Id. at 51.

131 Id. She individually weighed the four (4) sachets which yield to the following: EBP-1 - 5.03 grams; EBP-2 - 4.09 grams, EBP-3 - 5.02 grams and EBP-4 - 0.02 grams. The total weight of the confiscated illicit drugs is 14.16 grams.

132 Id. at 52.

133 Id. at 53.

134 Id. at 43.

135 Id.

136 People v. Bontuyan, 742 Phil. 788, 799 (2014) [Per J. Perez, First Division].

137 People v. Del Mundo, 418 Phil. 740, 755 (2001) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division].

138 CA rollo, p. 62.

139 Id.

140 See People v. Minanga, 751 Phil. 240, 249 (2015) [Per J. Villarama, Jr., Third Division].

141 Id.

142 People v. Bautista, 682 Phil. 487, 499 (2012) [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].

143 Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 586 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].

144 Id.

145 Id.

146 People v. Dimaano, G.R. No. 174481, February 10, 2016, <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2016/february2016/174481.pdf> [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].

147 Id. at 10.

148 Id.

149 Id.

150 Id. This is the prevailing law then. Now amended by Republic Act No. 10640 (2014) or 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."

151 People v. Dela Cruz, 744 Phil. 816, 827 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].

152 People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78, 93 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].

153 People v. Denoman, 612 Phil. 1165, 1175 (2009) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].

154 People v. Dela Cruz, 744 Phil. 816, 827 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].

155 People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78, 94 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].

156 People v. Dela Cruz, 744 Phil. 816, 827 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].

157 G.R. No. 219829, January 18, 2017, <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2017/january2017/219829.pdf> [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].

158 Id. at 7-9.

159 G.R. No. 207396, August 9, 2017, <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2017/august2017/207396.pdf> [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].

160 Id. at 9-11.

161 G.R. No. 208471, August 2, 2017, <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2017/august2017/208471.pdf> [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].

162 Id.

163 Id. at 14-16.

164 Id.

165 People v. Denoman, 612 Phil. 1165, 1178 (2009) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].

166 People v. Capuno, 655 Phil. 226, 240 (2011) [Per J. Brion, Third Division].

167 People v. Denoman, 612 Phil. 1165, 1178 (2009) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].

168 People v. Pringas, 558 Phil. 579, 593 (2007) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division].

169 CA rollo, p. 42.

170 Id. at 58.

171 Id. at 55.

172 Id. at 56.

173 Id. at 59.

174 Id. at 90.

175 Id. at 55.

176 See People v. Reyes, G.R. No. 199271, October 19, 2016, <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2016/october2016/199271.pdf> [Per Justice Bersamin, First Division].

177 Rollo, p. 14.

178 CA rollo, pp. 51-52.

179 Id. at 52.

180 Id. at 56.

181 Id.

182 Id. at 56-57.

183 Id. at 57.

184 People v. Amarillo, 692 Phil. 698, 711 (2012) [Per J. Perez, Second Division].

185 Rollo, p. 14.

186 Id.

187 Id.

188 People v. Dimaano, G.R. No. 174481, February 10, 2016, <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2016/february2016/174481.pdf> 12 [Per J. Leonen, Second Division],

189 See CA rollo, p. 40.

190 People v. Dulay, 468 Phil. 56, 65 (2004) [Per J. Azcuna, First Division].

191 Id.

192 See Rep. Act No. 9165, art. II, sec. 11 which provides that the penalty of "Life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos (₱400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (₱500,000.00), if the quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu" is ten (10) grams or more but less than fifty (50) grams."

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

---