SECOND
DIVISION
HERMINIO
BUENAVENTURA y RECTO,
Appellant,
- versus -
PEOPLE OF THE
Appellee.
G.R. No. 171578
Present:
QUISUMBING,
J., Chairperson,
CARPIO,
Promulgated:
August 8, 2007
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Appellant,
Herminio Buenaventura y Recto, was in two Informations charged before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaluyong for violation of Republic Act No.
6425 (R.A. 6425), otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act, docketed as
Criminal Case Nos. MC02-5167-D-H and MC02-5168-D-H, for selling and possession,
respectively.
The accusatory portion of the first
Information reads:
That on or about
the 13th day of April 2002, in the City of Mandaluyong, Philippines,
a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
without any lawful authority, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously sell, deliver or distribute to P/INSP. Roberto Palisoc, Jr. a poseur buyer, in the amount of P2,400.00
with serial nos. LR094904, TNT215767, D257728,Y57603, BL472852, YB026795,
BG593266 and YC83780 one (1) brick of marijuana fruiting tops with 879, 488
grams, which were found positive to the test for marijuana, a prohibited drug,
without the corresponding authority, license and prescription, in violation of
the above-cited law.[1] (Underscoring supplied)
That of the second Information reads:
That on or about
the 13th day of April, 2002, in the City of Mandaluyong,
Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, not having been lawfully authorized to possess or
otherwise use any prohibited drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously and knowingly have in his possession and under his custody and
control nine (9) bricks of marijuana fruiting tops to wit:
|
1. 915.748 grams |
6.897.190 grams |
|
2. 771.174 grams |
7.893.382 grams |
|
3. 911.105 grams |
8.846.262 grams |
|
4. 914.801 grams |
9.809.622 grams |
|
5. 918.844 grams |
|
all in the total
grams of 7,877.858 grams, which were found positive to the test for marijuana, a prohibited drug, without the corresponding
authority, license and prescription, in violation of the above-cited law.[2] (Underscoring supplied)
From the evidence for the prosecution,
the following facts were established:
Following their receipt of a report
from an informant that a certain “Demet,” who is a resident of Mandaluyong City,
was selling marijuana in the Malate area, SPO2 Charlie Manzano
(SPO2 Manzano) and PO1 Christopher Rivera (PO1
Rivera), upon the instruction of Police Inspector Roberto Palisoc (P/Insp.
Palisoc), Chief of the Station Drug Enforcement Unit of the Malate Police, conducted
on April 7, 2002 a surveillance in the Malate area to verify the report of the
informant.
On
A buy-bust operation was thus scheduled
on P2,400 representing the cost of one brick of marijuana. The money consisted of four P500 bills
and four P100 bills, each of which was marked with “RP” on the left portion
thereof.
The teams proceeded to the Mandaluyong Police
Station to coordinate with the local police, after which they repaired to their
target location at
P/Insp. Palisoc, together with the
informant, went to the house at
On seeing appellant in front of the house, P/Insp.
Palisoc and the informant approached him. The informant then introduced
appellant to P/Insp. Palisoc as the person interested to buy the “stuff.”
On appellant’s invitation, P/Insp. Palisoc and the
informant went inside the house where appellant asked for the payment.
P/Insp. Palisoc thus gave the marked P2,400 to
appellant who then took out one brick of marijuana from a black traveling bag which
he gave to P/Insp. Palisoc, asking the latter to sniff it.
Convinced by its smell and texture that the brick
was marijuana, P/Insp. Palisoc placed one hand inside his pocket and beeped his
cellular phone which served as his pre-arranged signal to the other members of
the teams.
P/Insp. Palisoc thereafter introduced himself as a
police officer and arrested appellant. The
other members of the teams repaired to appellant’s house, introduced themselves
as police officers, and searched the premises where they recovered the black traveling
bag which contained nine (9) bricks of marijuana.
After apprising appellant of his constitutional rights,
the policemen searched his person from whom they recovered the marked P2,400.
The marijuana bricks were subjected to laboratory
examination by Forensic Chemist Judycel A. Macapagal, the result of which is reflected
in her report as follows:
SPECIMEN SUBMITTED:
One (1) black travel[l]ing bag with markings “PS-9 HRB
|
A (HB-BB) – 879.488 grams |
F
(HB 5) – 918.844 grams |
|
B (HB 1)
– 915.478 grams |
G
(HB 6) – 897.190 grams |
|
C (HB 2) – 771.174 grams |
H
(HB 7) – 893.382 grams |
|
D (HB 3) – 911.105 grams |
I
(HB 8) – 846.262 grams |
|
E (HB 4) – 914.801 grams |
J
(HB 9) – 809.622 grams |
TOTAL NET WEIGHT = 8,757.346 grams
PURPOSE OF
LABORATORY EXAMINATION:
To determine the presence of prohibited or
regulated drug. x x x
FINDINGS:
Qualitative examination conducted on the
above-stated specimen gave POSITIVE results to the tests for Marijuana, a
prohibited drug. x x x
CONCLUSION:
Specimen A through J contain Marijuana, a prohibited drug. x x x[3] (Underscoring supplied)
Upon the other hand, the defense
proffered the following version:
On
While inside the van, appellant asked
the policemen inside why he was being arrested. One of them answered that
someone pointed to him as an owner of marijuana, which appellant denied, he
telling them that they could go to his house to prove that he had none. The policemen thus repaired to his house.
Upon reaching appellant’s house, the policemen
knocked at the door but nobody answered, prompting one of the policemen to kick
the door open after which all of them went inside. Three of the policemen went upstairs, but
after five to seven minutes, they went down empty-handed.
The policemen all left appellant’s house and returned
to the van. Soon after they went
inside the van, two men arrived carrying a black bag which they placed on the
front seat. One of the men in the van
then pointed to appellant as the owner of the bag, which appellant denied.
Appellant was then blindfolded and his cellular phone,
wallet and belt were taken from him. Afterwards, they all went to Precinct 9 of
WPD Manila where he was detained.
By Decision[4]
of June 10, 2004, Branch 209 of the RTC of Mandaluyong City found appellant guilty
of both charges, it holding that as between the straightforward and positive
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the bare and negative testimony of
appellant, the former indubitably deserve greater weight and credence.
Before the Court of Appeals to which appellant
assailed the trial court’s decision, he raised the following issues:
I.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN CONVICTING
ACCUSED-APPELLANT;
II.
WHETHER OR NOT THE POLICE OFFICERS STATIONED IN
MALATE HAS JURISDICTION TO ARREST ACCUSED APPELLANT IN MANDALUYONG WITHOUT
WARRANT OF ARREST.
III.
WHETHER OR NOT THE ARREST OF ACCUSED-APPELLANT
CONDUCTED WITHOUT WARRANT OF ARREST IS VALID.[5] (Underscoring supplied)
By Decision[6]
of
A perusal of the records show that appellant
failed to move for the quashal of the information filed against him.
Instead, he submitted himself before the Court, assisted by counsel, entered a
plea of not guilty, gave his testimony in open court and presented the
testimonies of other witnesses to corroborate his version of what happened.
Appellant cannot, therefore be permitted to raise such issue before this
Court as there was a clear waiver of his objection to the validity of his
arrest.
The arrest made on
appellant is valid notwithstanding the absence of a warrant of arrest.
Appellant was apprehended pursuant to a legitimate buy-bust operation based
on the information given by the informant to the Malate Police.
x x x x
Appellant was convicted
of violating Section 4, RA 6425, as amended, for the sale of marijuana.
Jurisprudence has firmly entrenched the following elements in the crime of
illegal sale of prohibited drugs: (1) the accused (appellant) sold and
delivered a prohibited drug to another, and (2) he knew that what he had sold
and delivered was a dangerous drug. These essential elements have been
established in the present case. Appellant sold and delivered the marijuana
to P/Insp. Palisoc posing as buyer. It was seized and identified as a
prohibited drug and subsequently presented as evidence. Appellant was aware
that he was selling and delivering marijuana as he in fact asked P/Insp.
Palisoc to sniff it upon handling the same.
x x x x
The witnesses for the
prosecution are law enforcement officers who, unless shown that they were
inspired by an improper motive or were not properly performing their duty, have
in their favor the legal presumption that official duty has been regularly
performed. x x x
No ill motive in
charging appellants of the offense, on the part of the police officers has been
established. The accused (appellant) even testified that it was the first
time that he met the police officers and he was unaware of any reason as to why
these police officers who arrested him would fabricate charges against him.
Likewise, appellant has not filed and has no intention of filing any criminal
or administrative case against the police officers.
x x x x
Appellant was likewise
charged of violation of Section 8 of RA 6425, as amended or illegal possession
of prohibited drugs. In support of the charge, the prosecution presented as
evidence the confiscated drugs obtained after the warrantless arrest of
appellant.
x x x x
Having caught
appellant in flagrante delicto as a result of the buy bust operation, the
police officers were not only authorized but were also under obligation to
apprehend the drug pusher. Since the arrest is lawful, the search
made incidental to the arrest is valid.[7] (Underscoring supplied)
Before this Court, appellant faults the
appellate court in:
I.
. . . NOT CONSIDERING THE LEGAL ISSUE SHOWN UNDER
SECTION 21, ARTICLE II OF R.A. NO. 9165, THAT IS, THE APPREHENDING POLICE
OFFICERS DID NOT MAKE THE PHYSICAL INVENTORY AND PHOTOGRAPH THE SAME IN THE
PRESENCE OF THE ACCUSED OR ANY 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 THE COPY
THEREOF [sic];
II.
. . . AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE HONORABLE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT WHERE THE POLICE ARRESTED THE ACCUSED-PETITIONER
OUTSIDE ITS TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION AND WITHOUT PROPER COORDINATION
WITH PDEA DESPITE CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT THE ARRESTING OFFICERS ARRESTED THE
PETITIONER OUTSIDE THEIR TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION WITHOUT PROPER COORDINATION
WITH PDEA. [sic] HENCE, THE HONORABLE
COURT OF APPEALS ACTED WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION, OR WITH GRAVE
ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION.
III.
. . . AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE HON. REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ACCUSED-PETITIONER AT THE TIME OF
ARREST WAS NOT INFORMED OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. HENCE, THE HONORABLE
COURT OF APPEALS ACTED WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION, OR WITH GRAVE
ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION.
IV.
. . . AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE HONORABLE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT DESPITE THE ARREST WAS WITHOUT WARRANT, SEARCH OR
OTHERWISE NOT VALIDLY ISSUED WITH CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT THE PETITIONER WAS
ILLEGALLY ARRESTED HAVING BEEN ARRESTED WITHOUT WARRANT. [sic] HENCE, THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ACTED WITHOUT OR IN
EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION, OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK
OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION.
V.
. . . IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE HONORABLE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE POLICE DID NOT COMPLY WITH
THE PROVISION OF LAW, RA 6425 AS AMENDED WITH RA 9165 CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT THE
ALLEGED ILLEGAL DRUGS ALLEGEDLY TAKEN FROM THE ACCUSED WAS PLANTED. [sic]
HENCE, THE HONORABLE
COURT OF
APPEALS ACTED
WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION, OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION.[8] (Underscoring supplied)
The pertinent provisions of the Dangerous Drugs Act-bases
of appellant’s indictment read:
Section 4.
Section 8. Possession or Use of Prohibited Drugs.
– The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five
hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person
who, unless authorized by law, shall possess or use any prohibited drug subject
to the provision of Section 20 hereof. (As amended by R.A. 7659, December 13,
1993.) (Underscoring supplied)
Section 20. Application of Penalties,
Confiscation and Forfeiture of the Proceeds or Instruments of the Crime. –
The penalties for offenses under Sections 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9 of Article II . . .
shall be applied if the dangerous drugs involved is in any of the following
quantities:
x x x x
5. 750 grams or
more of Indian hemp or marijuana;
x x x x
(Underscoring supplied)
With
respect to illegal sale of marijuana, its essential elements are: (1) identity of the buyer and the seller,
the object of the sale and the consideration; and (2) delivery of the thing sold
and the payment.[9]
In the instant case, the elements of illegal sale
were established with moral certainty by the prosecution. Considering the following testimony of P/Insp.
Palisoc:
x x x x
Q: How
did you know that that person who was there in front of the house was the
subject of your operation?
A: The
subject was pointed to me by the Informant.
That when he pointed to me the subject personality that was the time
that I was able to know or to identify the person.
Q: So,
when this person was pointed to you by the Informant how far were you at that
time from him when he was pointed as the subject of your operation?
A: Around
ten (10) meters.
Q: When
you approached him what did you do?
A: I
was introduced to him by the Informant.
Q: How
were you introduced?
A: I
was introduced to him as the person who is interest to buy the staff [sic].
Q: So,
what did you do when you were introduced to that person?
A: When
I was introduced to him as the person who is interested to buy, we were invited
to get inside the house.
Q: Who
invited you?
A: The
subject person.
x x x x
Q: Why
were you invited inside the house?
Atty. Arias: May I move also Your Honor that the witness is reading his
notes while answering without asking permission from the Court.
A: With
due permission Your Honor, with the voluminous conduct of operation I can
not remember all the things. This is not
the only case. I have already attended
the hearing in Manila with the same case, Your Honor.
x x x x
Court: Alright,
the witness is allowed to refer to his notes to refresh his memory.
x x x x
Q: Why
were you invited to get inside the house?
x x x x
A: Most
probably he invited us to get inside is that he can not give us the staff [sic] in the open.
Atty. Arias: The answer is conjectural Your Honor.
Q: Why
did he directly invited [sic] you inside his house?
A: For
his illegal transaction.
Q: Why
was there already a transaction that you entered into with that person?
A: Yes,
I was introduced as the one who is interested to buy a prohibited drug which is
marijuana.
x x x x
Q: While
you were inside the house what did you do there?
A: I
did nothing but he asked for the payment of marijuana.
x x x x
Q: My
question, Your Honor, why is it he is asking money from you?
A: Because
I was buying the marijuana.
Q: How
much is the marijuana?
A: One
(1) brick of marijuana is P2,400.00.
Q: So,
what did you do when asked you to give the money to him.
A: I
put out the money and I gave it to him.
Q: When
you gave the money to him what did he do?
A: He
get one brick of marijuana inside the traveling bag which is this one.
x x x x
Q: Where
is that bag where he got one (1) brick of marijuana that you bought from him at
that time?
A: I
said it was inside the house the bag was near him.
Q: How
far is it in relation to the place where you were then?
A: It
was placed on top of a little table.
Q: How
far is that from him, the bag?
A: From
where he was sitting he can reach for it this far. When he opened it he gave it to me.
Q: When
he gave that one (1) brick of marijuana to you what did you do?
A: He
asked me to sniff it.
Q: And
what did you do when you sniff it?
A: I
not only sniff it but I opened the brick and I examined the contents.
Q: When
you examined the contents of it what did you do?
A: When
I examined the contents I could tell that it is marijuana because of the smell
and the texture. I placed my hand inside
my pocket and I beeped by cell phone which served as . . . the DILG Operatives.
Q: And
then what happened?
A: Then
I introduced myself as police officer and I placed him under arrest.[10] (Underscoring supplied)
The positive, candid, straightforward
and detailed testimony of P/Insp. Palisoc, which was corroborated
by the other members of the buy-bust teams, satisfactorily proves that a lawful
buy-bust operation was conducted and that appellant is guilty of illegal sale
of marijuana.
As to illegal possession of
marijuana, Abuan v. People[11] enumerates its elements as follows:
(a) the accused is in possession of the
regulated drugs;
(b) the accused is fully and consciously aware
of being in possession of the regulated drug; and
(c) the accused has no legal authority to
possess the regulated drug.[12]
On the kind of possession and its evidentiary
value, the same case of Abuan teaches:
. . . Possession
may be actual or constructive. In order to establish the constructive
possession, the People must prove that petitioner had dominion or control on
either the substance or the premises where found. The State must prove the
adequate nexus between the accused and the prohibited substance. Possession
of dangerous drugs constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict
an accused in the absence of any satisfactory explanation of such
possession. The burden of evidence is shifted to petitioner to explain the
absence of animus possidendi.[13] (Underscoring supplied)
The bricks of marijuana with a total
weight of 7,877.858 grams were found in appellant’s house over which he
naturally had dominion and control. The
bricks were recovered from the bag from where he had earlier taken the one
which he sold to poseur-buyer P/Insp. Palisoc.
Appellant, nevertheless, assails the validity of his
arrest and the search on his person and his house at the time of his arrest. Apropos
is the following pronouncement in People
v. Bagsit:[14]
x x x It is long
settled that where the accused, by his voluntary submission to the jurisdiction
of the court, as shown by the counsel-assisted plea he entered during the
arraignment and his active participation in the trial thereafter, voluntarily
waives his constitutional protection against illegal arrests and searches. We
have consistently ruled that any objection concerning the issuance or service
of a warrant or a procedure in the acquisition by the court of jurisdiction
over the person of the accused must be made before he enters his plea,
otherwise, the objection is deemed waived.[15]
As correctly observed by the appellate court,
appellant failed to move for the quashal of the informations filed against him. He instead submitted himself to the jurisdiction
of the court. With the assistance of counsel,
he entered a not guilty plea, and presented evidence in his defense. He thus
clearly waived his objection to the validity of his arrest.
In any event, the warrantless arrest of appellant is justified
under Rule 113, Section 5(a) of the Rules of Court[16]
which reads:
SEC. 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.
In another vein, appellant draws attention to the non-compliance
by the apprehending police authorities with the following provision of R.A. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
of 2002:
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, (Underscoring supplied)
The buy-bust operation took place on
As for the arresting officers’ conduct of the buy-bust
operation outside their jurisdiction, the same may not be seriously questioned,
they having coordinated with the Mandaluyong Police as shown by the Coordination
Form[17]
accomplished by the members of the Malate Police Station Drug Enforcement Unit.
Respecting
appellant’s claim that he was not informed of his constitutional rights at the
time of his arrest, the same cannot prevail over P/Insp. Palisoc’s following
testimony:
Q: So
what did you do as the poseur-buyer and the person who arrested him appears in
this case [?] [sic]
A: I apprised him his rights.
Q: What were the rights that you appraised him?
A: I told him that “you have the right to remain silent. Whatever
you say will be used against you . . . You have the right to counsel of your
own choice.”
Q: After informing of his rights what else did you and your
companions do?
A: He was searched by my man, Manzano. And Manzano was able to
recover and the utilized the buy bust money [sic].[18]
P/Insp. Palisoc’s declaration was corroborated by the other
members of the apprehending teams who, in their Joint Affidavit of
Apprehension,[19] declared:
That
suspect HERMINIO BUENAVENTURA y RECTO was apprised of his Constitution Rights
under the law which he understands and inform[ed of] the charges imputed
against him but opted to remain silent. That subsequently he was brought to the
WPD, Malate Police Station (PS9), Station Drug Enforcement Unit for
investigation and proper disposition.[20]
On appellant’s claim that
the bricks of marijuana were planted, the Court is unconvinced. Frame-up is a defense that has been
invariably viewed with disfavor, it being easily concocted and is a common
standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs
Act.[21] Absent clear
and convincing evidence of a frame-up, as in the present case, it must be
rejected.[22]
Finally, given appellant’s following testimony that he was
not aware of any reason why the police officers would fabricate charges against
him and had no intention of filing
administrative charges against the arresting officers, viz:
FISCAL TOBIAS: I am asking him if he is
aware of any reason why these persons who apprehended him should fabricate charges against him?
A
: None, Sir.
FISCAL TOBIAS: You don’t know of any
reason. If indeed your allegation
that you were not caught in possession of the drugs subject matter of the
information as well as the allegation about the fact that you allegedly sold
some marijuana to the poseur buyer in this case Police Inspector Roberto
Palisoc, Jr. did you make any move to charge these
persons about this fabrication that they made against you?
ATTY. ARIAS : Hypothetical, Your Honor.
A
: No, Sir.
Q
: You
did not file any charges against these persons despite the gravity of the
offense that they have fabricated against you?
A : No, Sir.
Q :
Up to now?
A : Yes, Sir.
Q: : Are you not intending to file any case
against these persons who had deprived you of your liberty?
A : I don’t have any intention to file a
charge against them.,[23]
the presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duty by the apprehending officers
must remain.
On to the penalty to be
imposed. The unauthorized sale of
750 grams or more of marijuana carries with it the penalty of reclusion
perpetua to death and a fine ranging from Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000)
to Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000). The unauthorized possession of 750
grams or more of marijuana carries the same penalty.
The trial court imposed the
penalty of reclusion perpetua for
each of the offenses since neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances
attended their commission.[24] The appellate court affirmed the penalty
imposed.
In light of the enactment of
R.A. No. 9346[25] which
prohibits the imposition of the death penalty, the Court finds it unnecessary
to still discuss the presence or absence of mitigating or aggravating
circumstances.
The imposition of reclusion perpetua is
thus in order as is the amount of fines.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
Costs
against appellant, Herminio Buenaventura y Recto.
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA CARPIO
MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
DANTE O. TINGA
Associate Justice
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest
that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to
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.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Records, p. 1.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5] Court of Appeals (CA) rollo, p. 35.
[6]
[7]
[8] Rollo, pp. 11-12.
[9] People v. Razul, 441 Phil. 62, 75 (2002).
[10] Transcript of Stenographic Notes
(TSN),
[11] G.R. No. 168773,
[12]
[13] Ibid.
[14] G.R. No. 148877,
[15] Id. at 354 citing People v. Lopez, 315 Phil. 59, 71-72 (1995); People v. Cabiles, 348 Phil. 220, 232-233 (1998).
[16] People
v. Bugatan, G.R. No. 172019, February 12, 2007; Teodosio v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124346, June 8,
2004, 431 SCRA 194, 207.
[17] Exhibit “E,” records, p. 75.
[18] TSN,
[19] Exhibit “F,” records, p. 76.
[20] Ibid.
[21] People v. Barita, 381 Phil. 832, 848 (2000).
[22] People v. Lacbanes, 336 Phil. 933, 940 (1997).
[23] TSN,
[24] Article 64 (2), Revised Penal Code.
[25] An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in
the