Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2020 > September 2020 Decisions > G.R. No. 243985 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROGELIO SEROJALES Y CARABALLA A.K.A. "TATAY," AND JUANITA·GOYENOCHE Y GEPIGA A.K.A. "NITA," ACCUSED. JUANITA GOYENOCHE Y GEPIGA A.K.A. "NITA,"Accused-Appellant.:

On appeal is the September  4, 2018 Decision¹ of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01772-MIN which affirmed the August 7, 2017 Consolidated  Decision² of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 44, Initao, Misamis  Oriental  West,  in Criminal  Cases No.  2011-2064, 2011-2065 and 2011-2066, finding accused Rogelio Serojales  y Caraballa a.k.a. "Tatay" and accused-appellant Juanita  Goyenoche  y Gepiga  a.k.a. "Nita"  guilty  beyond reasonable  doubt  of violating  Sections  5 (Illegal  Sale of Dangerous Drugs) and 11 (Illegal  Possession of Dangerous  Drugs),  Article  II of Republic  Act (R.A) No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous  Drugs Act of 2002.

The accused are charged with violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 in the following Informations quoted as follows:clubjuris

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 201 1-2064

That on September  2, 2011, in Poblacion,  Laguindingan,  Misamis Oriental, Philippines,  and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable  Court, the above-named  accused, conspiring,  confederating  and mutually helping one another, without being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously  and knowingly deliver to poseur-buyer, for and in consideration  of Php  500.00,  with  Serial  Number  TM336888,  a  marked money,  one  (1)  small plastic  sachet containing 0.02 gram  of  white crystalline substance which gave positive result to the tests for the presence of Methamphetamine  Hydrochloride (Shabu), a dangerous drug.

CONTRARY TO and in violation of Art. II, Sec. 5 of R.A. 9165.

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 2011-2065

That on September  2, 2011, in Poblacion, Laguindingan,  Misamis Oriental, Philippines,  and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named  accused, without  being authorized  by law, did then and there  willfully,  unlawfully,  feloniously  and  knowingly  possess,  one  (1) sealed transparent  plastic [sachet] containing  a total weight of point eight (0.8) gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu), a dangerous drug.

CONTRARY  TO and in violation of Art. II, Sec. 1 1 of R.A. 9165.

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 2011-2066

That on September  2, 2011, in Poblacion, Laguindingan, Misamis Oriental, Philippines,  and within the jurisdiction  of this Honorable  Court, the above-named  accused, without  being authorized  by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and knowingly possess, seven (7) sealed transparent plastic sachets containing a total weight of point twenty­nine (0.29) gram of Methamphetamine  Hydrochloride (Shabu), a dangerous drug.

CONTRARY TO and in violation of Art. II, Sec. 11 of R.A. 9165.³

On arraignment, Serojales and Goyenoche pleaded "not guilty" to the charges. Thereafter, trial on merits ensued.

Version of the Prosecution
On September 2, 2011, around 10:00 a.m., a confidential informant reported that Serojales known as "Tatay," was selling illegal drugs in Laguindingan and other neighboring municipalities in Misamis Oriental. Consequently,  a  team  of  Philippine  Drug  Enforcement  Agency  (PDEA) agents was formed to conduct a buy-bust operation. The buy-bust team was composed of IO-3 Rubietania L. Aguilar who was designated as poseur-buyer, while 1A-1 Rodolfo S. De La Cerna was tasked as the arresting officer. Thereafter, IO-3 Aguilar  was  provided  with  one P500.00 bill  with serial number TM336888 to be used as buy-bust money.

On the same day, at 12:00 noon, the team, together with the confidential informant, proceeded to Laguindingan, Misamis Oriental to pursue the buy­ bust  operation.  At  the  time  of  the  team's arrival,  IO3 Aguilar  and  the confidential informant alighted from their vehicle and waited for "Tatay" in a waiting shed  along  the  national  highway.  After  a  few  moments,  accused "Tatay"  and accused-appellant Goyenoche arrived. Subsequently, IO3 Aguilar was introduced by the confidential informant as buyer. Serojales then asked IO3  Aguilar for his money.  IO3 Aguilar handed the marked money to the accused.  After that, Serojales asked Goyenoche  to give IO3  Aguilar a sachet of shabu.  IO3  Aguilar examined the contents of the sachet. At that point, IO3 Aguilar executed the pre-arranged  signal by dialing the number of IA1 De La Cerna.  Following that, IA1  De La Cerna came together with the rest of the team and introduced himself as a PDEA Agent.  Accused were then informed of the violation they had committed and apprised them of their constitutional rights.

The  team  conducted  a  search  on  the  persons  of  the  accused  and recovered  7  pieces  of  transparent  plastic  sachets,  all  containing  white crystalline substance  believed to be shabu in the possession of Goyenoche. While the buy-bust money and one (1) transparent  plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance believed to be shabu was found in the possession of Serojales.

IO3  Aguilar then turned over to IA1  De La Cerna the sachet of shabu that she bought from the accused for inventory, which was marked with BB­LRA. The inventory and marking of evidence were conducted in the presence of Barangay Councilor Lyn K. Denham and Sheila Joy Labrador from ABS­CBN, as the representative from media.  Serojales and Goyenoche were then brought to the PDEA office for proper disposition and legal documentation. Thereafter, all the confiscated items were forwarded to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination.

Version of the Defense

Accused  Serojales  and  Goyenoche  vehemently  denied  the  charge against them. They alleged that they were waiting for a jeepney at the afore­mentioned waiting shed, when a vehicle stopped in front of them and its passengers jumped out from it and shouted "dapal" (lie on the ground). After which they were frisked while on the ground. When nothing was found on their persons, Serojales heard a PDEA agent's call wherein he heard the other person on the line saying "pangita mog idea" (Find another way).  After that, another PDEA agent brought to the scene a sachet of shabu, the ownership of which was imputed to Serojales and Goyenoche. They denied the imputation against them. Nevertheless,  they were photographed  with it and were then taken to the Police Station of Laguindingan.

The accused argued that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody requirement  under the law.  They maintained that there was a break in the very first link of the chain of custody when IAI De La Cerna failed to mark the sachets of shabu immediately upon seizing them from the accused. They further contended that the marking after the seizure is the starting point of  the  custodial link;  hence,  it  is  vital  that  the  seized contraband be immediately marked to prevent contamination, planting or switching of evidence.  Thus, for the failure of the certificate of inventory to reveal the marks on the items enumerated therein, the accused alleged that it created a reasonable doubt to the factuality of the marking.

RTC Ruling
After trial, the RTC handed a guilty verdict on both accused Serojales and Goyenoche for violation of Sections 5 (Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs) and 11 (Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs), Article II of R.A No. 9165. The dispositive portion of the August 7, 2017 Decision⁴   states:clubjuris

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment  is hereby rendered as follows:clubjuris

1. In Criminal Case No. 2011-2064: FINDING both accused ROGELIO SEROJALES y CARABALLA a.k.a. "Tatay" and JUANITA GOYENOCHE  y GEPIGA a.k.a. "Nita" GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5 of Republic  Act 9165, hereby sentences them to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment  and to pay a fine of Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) each.
   
   
2. In Criminal  Case No. 2011-2065: FINDING  accused ROGELIO SEROJALES y CARABALLA  a.k.a. "Tatay" GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11 of Republic Act 9165, hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years, and to pay a fine of Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00).
   
   
3. In Criminal Case No. 2011-[2066]:  FINDING accused JUANITA GOYENOCHE y GEPIGA a.k.a. "Nita" GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11  of Republic Act 9165, hereby sentences the accused to suffer the penalty of  imprisonment  of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years, and to pay a fine of Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00).

The drugs and buy-bust money amounting to Five hundred pesos (P500.00) subject matter of these cases are hereby ordered confiscated and forfeited in favor of the govenm1ent to be dealt with in accordance with the law.

SO ORDERED.⁵

In ruling that the arrest of the accused was an arrest in flagrante delicto made in pursuance of Section 5(a)(1), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court which states that "the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime," the RTC observed that the arrest was effected after Serojales and Goyenoche performed the overt act of selling to IO3  Aguilar the sachets of shabu. Thus, Serojales and Goyenoche were lawfully arrested.  Moreover, the RTC gave credence to the testimonies of the arresting officers as to what happened during the buy-bust operation, stating that the testimonies were expressed in a candid and straightforward manner and finding absence of any improper motive. Further,  the RTC ruled that the prosecution was able to establish all the elements for the prosecution of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. Lastly, the RTC is of the opinion  that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved.

CA Ruling
On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC Decision.  The CA ruled that all the elements for the illegal sale and possession of shabu were established by the prosecution.  The CA agreed with the findings of the trial court that the prosecution duly established the identity of accused as drug sellers and IO3 Aguilar as the poseur-buyer.  The appellate court was in the position that there is no question that Serojales and Goyenoche were caught in flagrante delicto by the police officers in a valid entrapment or "buy-bust" operation.  In ruling that the testimonies of the apprehending officers deserve full faith and credit, the CA opined that accused-appellants bear the burden of showing that the evidence was tampered or meddled with in order to overcome the presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers and the presumption that public officers  properly discharged their duties. Further, the appellate court, concluded  that evidence clearly show an unbroken  chain of custody with respect to the seized illegal drugs; thus, ruling that the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized drugs were sufficiently maintained.

In a Resolution⁶   dated March 14, 2018, the CA resolved to dismiss the case against Serojales in view of his death on September 4, 2017, to wit:clubjuris

Consequently,  Serojales'  death  on 4 September  2017  renders  the Court's  30 January 2018 Resolution iuelevant  and ineffectual as to him, and is therefore set aside. Accordingly, the criminal case against Serojales is dismissed. The appeal of Rogelio Serojales culminating in the extinguishment  of his criminal liability does not have any effect on his co­accused-appellant Juanita Goyenoche. The extinguishment  of Rogelio Serojales' criminal and pecuniary liabilities is predicated on his death and not on his acquittal.⁷

Before us, the People and the accused-appellant Goyenoche, manifested that they would no longer file a Supplemental  Brief, taking into account  the  thorough  and  substantial  discussions  of  the  issues  in  their respective appeal briefs before the CA.

Our Ruling
We find the appeal meritorious.  The judgment of conviction is reversed and set aside, and Serojales and Goyenoche should be acquitted based on reasonable doubt.

Under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 or illegal sale of prohibited drugs,  in order  to  be convicted  of the said  violation,  the  following  must concur: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and its consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.⁸ The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money by the seller successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction. What is material, therefore, is the proof that the transaction or sale transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti, as evidence.⁹

On the other hand, in prosecutions for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, it must be shown that: (1) the accused was in possession of an item or an  object  identified to  be  a dangerous drug; (2)  such possession is  not authorized by  law; and (3) the  accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug.¹⁰ The existence of the drug is the very corpus delicti of the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs and, thus, a condition sine qua non for conviction.¹¹

To ensure  an unbroken  chain of custody,  Section 21(1)  of R.A. No. 9165 specifies:clubjuris

(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[.]

It bears  stressing  however,  that  failure  to  strictly  comply  with  the foregoing procedure will not render an arrest illegal or the seized items inadmissible in evidence, in view of the qualification permitted by Section 21 (a) of the Implementing  Rules  and  Regulations (IRR)  of RA No. 9165, to wit:¹²

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 ofthe 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 eguirements 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[.]

Section  1(b)  of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation  No. 1, Series of 2002, which implements R.A. No. 9165, defines chain of custody, to wit:clubjuris

Chain of custody  refers  to the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized  drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources  of dangerous drugs  or  laboratory equipment  of each  stage,  from  the time  of seizure/confiscation to receipt  in the forensic  laboratory to safekeeping, to presentation in court for destruction.

Well-entrenched in our jurisprudence is the rule that the identity of the dangerous drug be established beyond reasonable doubt.¹³ It is axiomatic that the dangerous drug be proven with certitude and that the substance bought during  the  buy-bust  operation  is  exactly  the  same  substance  offered  in evidence  before  the  court.  In  the  instant  case,  the  prosecution  failed  to establish the chain of custody of the seized shabu from the time they were recovered from the accused up to the time they were presented in court.

The prosecution failed to
establish that the seized drugs
were marked in the presence of
Serojales and Goyenoche

There are ostensibly  four links in the chain of custody that should be established: first, 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.¹⁴

In this case, the prosecution failed to establish the very first link in the chain of custody.

Crucial in proving chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or other related items immediately after they are seized from the accused. Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link, thus, it  is  vital  that  the seized  contraband  are  immediately marked  because succeeding  handlers  of the specimens  will  use the markings  as reference. The marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar  or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of criminal proceedings, obviating  switching, "planting," or contamination of evidence.¹⁵

The chain of custody rule  requires that  the  marking of  the  seized contraband  be done "(1) in the presence of the apprehended violator,  and (2) immediately upon confiscation.¹⁶

Here,  there  is no showing  that the seized  items were  marked  in the presence  of Serojales  and Goyenoche. All that the prosecution  established was that, IO3  Aguilar  turned over the sachet  of shabu to IA1  De La Cerna, who marked it with the letters "BB-LRA" and that the inventory and marking of evidence  were  conducted  in the presence  of Barangay  Councilor  Lyn  J. Denham and Sheila Joy Labrador from ABS-CBN.¹⁷   Other details are left out for this Court to guess.  It bears stressing, however, that it must be shown that the marking was done in the presence of the accused to assure that the identity and integrity  of the drugs  were properly  preserved. Failure  to comply  with this requirement  is fatal to the prosecution's case.¹⁸   The prosecution did not provide any justification from this deviation.  Corollarily, the Court finds that the  prosecution  failed  to  establish  the corpus  delicti  of the  crime  charged against him.

The prosecution's failure to present evidence to account for the very first link in the chain of custody already puts the rest of the chain into question  and compromises the integrity  and evidentiary  value of the sachets of shabu supposedly  seized from accused. Hence, there is already reasonable doubt as to whether  the seized  drugs were exactly  the same drugs presented in court as evidence.

The prosecution failed to secure the required witnesses under Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165

In People  v. Federico  Señeres,  Jr.,^[19 the Court  was instructive  on the number  of witnesses  required in prosecutions for illegal sale or possession  of dangerous  drugs, to ensure  the integrity  and evidentiary value of the seized drugs:clubjuris

Under the original  provision of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, after seizure and confiscation of the drugs, the apprehending  team is required to immediately conduct a physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of (1) the accused or the person's from whom such items were confiscated and/or  seized,  or  his/her  representative or  counsel;  (2)  a representative from  the media and  (3) from  the  DOJ;  and  (4) any elected public official  who shall  be required  to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. It is assumed that the presence  of these persons will guarantee  "against planting of  evidence  and frame up," i.e.,  they  are "necessary to insulate  the apprehension and incrimination proceedings from any taint of illegitimacy or irregularity." Now, the amendatory law mandates that  the conduct  of physical  inventory  and photograph of the seized  items must be in the presence of (1) the accused  or the person/s from  whom such items  were confiscated and/or  seized,  or his/her  representative or counsel; (2)  an  elected public  official;  and  (3) a  representative of  the  National Prosecution Service  or the media who shall sign the copies of the inventory and  be given  a copy  thereof. In  the  present case,  the  old  provisions of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and  its IRR shall apply since the  alleged crime was committed before the amendment.

In the present  case, the Informations filed against  Serojales  and Goyenoche show  that the crime charged  against  them was committed  on or about September 2, 2011, while the amendatory  law took effect much later, or only on  July 15, 2014. Hence,  the original  provision  of Section  21(1)  and its IRR as quoted above applies.

It is  undisputed that  the  inventory  and  marking of  evidence were conducted  only  in the presence  of Barangay  Councilor Lyn K. Denham  and Sheila  Joy Labrador  as the representative from  the  media.²⁰   However,  the prosecution  did not bother to explain the absence of a representative from the DOJ during the physical  inventory and the taking of photographs of the seized drugs  nor was  there  any  evidence  offered  to prove  that  the police  officers exerted  any  effort  to  seek  their  presence. The  buy-bust  operation, by its nature,  was arranged  and scheduled  in advance – the police officers  formed an  apprehending team,  coordinated  with  the Philippine Drug  Enforcement Agency, prepared  the buy-bust money, and held a briefing.  Simply  put, the buy-bust team had enough time and opportunity to bring with them said witnesses.²¹ Yet, the prosecution  failed to ensure  that a representative from the DOJ would be present during the physical inventory and the taking of photographs of  the  seized  drugs. Thus,  for  failure  of  the  prosecution  to provide  justifiable grounds or  to  show  that  it  exerted  genuine  efforts  in securing the witnesses required under Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the Court is constrained to rule that the integrity and the evidentiary  value of the seized drugs have been compromised.

It  cannot  be  overemphasized that  it  is the  prosecution who  has  the positive duty to establish that earnest efforts were employed in contacting  the representatives enumerated under Section  21(1)  of R.A. 9165,  or that there was a justifiable ground  for failing to do so.²²   The rules require that the apprehending officers  do not simply  mention  a justifiable  ground,  but also clearly state this ground  in their sworn affidavit, coupled  with a statement  on the steps they took to preserve the integrity of the seized item.²³   In the instant case, all the prosecution has done is to assert a self-serving claim that the integrity  of  the  seized pack  has  been  preserved despite  the  numerous procedural lapses it has committed.  The fatal errors of the apprehending team can only lead this Court to seriously doubt the integrity of the corpus delicti.

Thus, in People v. Ernesto Silayan,²⁴   the Court acquitted the accused for the prosecution's failure to secure the attendance of the required witnesses. The Court held:clubjuris

To repeat, the burden to prove that there were justifiable grounds for the non-compliance with the procedure laid down in Section 21 (1), Article II of RA 9165 and its IRR lies with the prosecution. It must show that the apprehending  team exerted earnest efforts to secure  the attendance  of the necessary witnesses.

However, in this case, there was not even an attempt to explain why the required witnesses were not present during the inventory. No evidence was adduced to prove that earnest efforts were exerted to comply with the requirements of Section 21 (1), Article II of RA 9165 and its IRR. As this was a buy-bust operation, it is by its nature a planned activity — the police officers had every chance to comply with the procedural requirements of the law. The prosecution offered no explanation for the failure of the buy-bust team to secure the required witnesses under the law. The total failure of the prosecution to explain the non-compliance with the procedural requirements of  Section  21 (1),  Article II  of RA 9165 and  its IRR creates  doubt  on whether the buy-bust team was able to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the items seized from Silayan.

Considering that  the  prosecution failed  to:  (1) prove  the corpus delicti of the crime; (2) establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs;  and  (3)  provide  justifiable  grounds  for  the  apprehending team's deviation from the rules laid down in Section 21 of RA 9165, it follows that the  integrity  and  evidentiary  value  of  the corpus  delicti have  thus  been compromised. In light of this, Serojales and Goyenoche must perforce be acquitted.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the September 4, 2018 Decision of the  Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01772-MIN, which affirmed the August 7, 2017 Consolidated Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 44, Initao, Misamis Oriental West, in Criminal Cases No. 2011-2064, 2011-2065 and 2011-2066, finding accused Rogelio Serojales y Caraballa a.k.a. "Tatay"  and  accused-appellant  Juanita  Goyenoche  y Gepiga  a.k.a. "Nita" guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 (Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs) and 11 (Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,  is  REVERSED  and  SET  ASIDE. Accordingly,  accused  Rogelio Serojales  y Caraballa  and  accused-appellant  Juanita  Goyenoche  y Gepiga a.k.a.  "Nita"  are  ACQUITTED on  reasonable  doubt.  The  Penal Superintendent of the Davao Prison and Penal Farm is ORDERED to IMMEDIATELY  CAUSE  THE  RELEASE  of  appellant  Juanita Goyenoche y Gepiga a.k.a. "Nita" from detention, unless she is being held for some other lawful cause, and to inform this Court her action hereon within five (5) days from receipt of this Decision.

SO ORDERED.

Caguioa,  Reyes, J., Jr., Lazaro-Javier, and Lopez, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:

---

¹ Penned  by Associate Justice Oscar V. Badelles, with Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Tita Marilyn  Payoyo-Villordon concurring; rollo, pp. 4-13.

² Penned  by Presiding Judge Marissa  P. Estabaya; CA  rollo, pp. 54-65.

³Id. at 55-56.

⁴Supra note 2.

⁵Rollo, p. 65.

⁶ CA rollo, pp. 68-70.

⁷Id. at 70.

⁸People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 29 (2017).

⁹People v. Vicente Sipin y De Castro, G.R. No. 224290, June 11, 2018.

¹⁰Id.

¹¹People v.  Martinez, 652 Phil. 347, 369 (2010).

¹²People v. Dalawis, 772 Phil. 406, 417 (2015).

¹³Cacao v. People, 624 Phil. 634, 643 (2010).

¹⁴People v. Jack Muhammad y Gustaham, G.R. No. 218803, July 10, 2019.

¹⁵People v. Mantalaba, 669 Phil. 461,478 (2011).

¹⁶People v. Gayoso, 808 Phil. 19, 32 (2017).

¹⁷ CA rollo, p. 100.

¹⁸People v. Ismael, supra note 8, at 37.

¹⁹ G.R. No. 231008, November 5, 2018.  (Emphases supplied).

²⁰ CA rollo, p. 100.

²¹People v. Tomawis, G.R. No. 228890, April  18, 2018,  862 SCRA  131 , 146.

²²People v. Umipang, 686  Phil.  1024,  1053 (2012).

²³People v. Señeres, supra note 19.

²⁴ G.R. No. 229362, June 19, 2019.