Republic of the
SUPREME COURT
THIRD DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, -
versus - ARSENIO CORTEZ y
MACALINDONG a.k.a. “Archie,” Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 183819 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J., Chairperson, CARPIO
MORALES,* CHICO-NAZARIO, VELASCO, JR., and PERALTA, JJ. Promulgated: July 23, 2009 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
VELASCO, JR., J.:
Accused-appellant Arsenio M. Cortez appeals from the Decision dated
September 20, 2007 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02269,
affirming the March 21, 2006 Decision in Crim. Case No. 13003-D of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC), Branch 164 in Pasig City.
The RTC found him guilty of violation of Section 5, Article II of
Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 or the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
In an Information dated
On or about October 26, 2003, in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, not being lawfully authorized to sell any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and give away to SPO2 Dante Zipagan, a police poseur-buyer, one (1) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing four (4) centigrams (0.04 gram) of white crystalline substance, which was found positive to the tests for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.
Contrary to law.[1]
When arraigned, Cortez entered a plea of “not guilty.”
During the pre-trial conference and as shown by the Pre-Trial Order,[2]
the defense admitted the authenticity and due execution of the prosecution’s Exhibit
“B,” the memorandum
requesting laboratory examination of a substance suspected of being shabu,
and Exhibit “C,” Physical Science Report No. D-2061-03E
dated
To prove its case, the prosecution presented in
evidence the testimonies of SPO2 Dante Zipagan and PO1 Michael Espares, both
members of the Station Drug Enforcement Unit (SDEU), Pasig City Police Station.
On the other hand, the defense presented Arsenio M. Cortez himself, and one
Pedrito T. de Borja.
Version of the Prosecution
On
Thereafter, the team, composed of, among others, PO1 Espares and SPO2
Zipagan, with the informant, proceeded to the target area. SPO2 Zipagan and the informant proceeded ahead
of the group. At the corner of San
Guillermo and
Meanwhile, the back-up police operatives, who were 10 meters away, upon
noticing the pre-arranged signal, rushed toward their team leader to help him
hold “Archie.” SPO2 Zipagan then
directed “Archie” to empty his pocket. From
his left pocket, “Archie” brought out with his left hand the buy-bust
money. PO1 Espares later testified
having witnessed this particular episode.
Afterwards, the team hauled “Archie” to the Pasig City Police Station for
investigation. The investigator, PO1
Clarence Nipales, then prepared a request for laboratory examination on the
white crystalline substance subject of the buy-bust operation. SPO2 Zipagan executed a sworn statement in
connection with the arrest of “Archie,” who was later identified as accused-appellant
Cortez.
The seized transparent plastic sachet containing the white crystalline
substance was forwarded to the Eastern Police District Crime Laboratory Office on
SPECIMEN SUBMITTED:
A – One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with
marking ‘AMC
x x x x
PURPOSE OF LABORATORY EXAMINATION:
To determine the presence of any dangerous drug.
x x x x
FINDINGS:
Qualitative examination conducted on the above-stated specimen gave POSITIVE result to the tests for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
x x x x
CONCLUSION:
Specimen A contain Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.[3] x x x
Version of the Defense
Cortez denied committing the crime charged. His own version of what
transpired may be summarized as follows:
He recounted that on
Afterwards, Cortez was alternately brought out and in the house. All the while, he kept on inquiring what the
case against him was all about only to be told to talk to the team leader. Finally, he was taken outside the house for a
ride in a car driven by the cell phone seller. They stopped at a gasoline station and then
boarded a tricycle which brought him to the Pasig City Police Station, where he
was investigated and finally detained.
Pedrito, the second witness for the defense, testified in gist that in
the morning in question, while he was on his way home after buying a cigarette,
he saw four persons banging the door of Cortez’s house. Moments later, he heard
one of the intruders uttered, “Kilala ko yan, kilala ko yan (I know
him. I know him.).” Then Cortez, followed by
The Ruling of the Trial Court
On
WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused Arsenio Cortez y Macalindong a.k.a. “Archie” GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of selling shabu penalized under Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 and hereby imposes upon him the penalty of life imprisonment and fine of Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) Pesos with all the accessory penalties under the law.
The plastic sachet containing shabu or methamphetamine hydrochloride (Exhibit “E-1”) is hereby ordered confiscated in favor of the government and turned over to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for destruction.
SO ORDERED.[4]
The Ruling of the Appellate Court
Forthwith, Cortez went on appeal to the CA. On
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Appeal is hereby DENIED. The challenged Decision is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.[5]
In so ruling, the appellate court dismissed
suggestions of frame-up and Cortez’s allegations regarding the inability of the
prosecution to prove that the drug presented in court was the same drug seized
from him.
Cortez filed a Notice of Appeal which the
CA gave due course. This Court, by
Resolution of
the [CA] erred in finding accused-appellant
guilty of the crime charged despite the prosecution’s failure to prove his
guilt beyond reasonable doubt
We sustain Cortez’s
conviction.
Buy-Bust Operation is a Form of Entrapment
As before the appellate court, Cortez decries that
he was a victim of a frame-up, implying the illegality of the buy-bust
operation undertaken by the
Cortez’s challenge about the legality of a buy-bust operation is already
a closed issue. In People v. Bongalon,[6]
the Court elucidated on the nature and legality of a buy-bust operation, noting
that it is a form of entrapment that is resorted to for trapping and capturing
felons who are pre-disposed to commit crimes. The operation is legal and has been proved to
be an effective method of apprehending drug peddlers, provided due regard to
constitutional and legal safeguards is undertaken.[7] Entrapment should be distinguished from
instigation which has been viewed as contrary to public policy.
In American jurisdiction, the term “entrapment” generally has a negative
connotation, because the idea to commit the criminal act originates from the
police, as opposed to the accused having a predisposition to commit the crime.[8] In Sorrells
v. United States, entrapment was
defined as the “conception and planning of an offense by an officer, and his
procurement of its commission by one who would not have perpetrated it except
for the trickery, persuasion or fraud of the officer.”[9]
In People v. Lua Chu and Uy Se
Tieng, the Court laid down the distinction between entrapment and
instigation or inducement, to wit:
ENTRAPMENT AND INSTIGATION.—While
it has been said that the practice of entrapping persons into crime for the
purpose of instituting criminal prosecutions is to be deplored, and while
instigation, as distinguished from mere entrapment, has often been condemned
and has sometimes been held to prevent the act from being criminal or punishable,
the general rule is that it is no defense to the perpetrator of a crime that
facilities for its commission were purposely placed in his way, or that the
criminal act was done at the ‘decoy solicitation’ of persons seeking to expose
the criminal, or that detectives feigning complicity in the act were present
and apparently assisting in its commission. Especially is this true in that
class of cases where the offense is one of a kind habitually committed, and the
solicitation merely furnishes evidence of a course of conduct. Mere deception
by the detective will not shield defendant, if the offense was committed by
him, free from the influence or instigation of the detective. The fact that an agent of an owner acts as a
supposed confederate of a thief is no defense to the latter in a prosecution
for larceny, provided the original design was formed independently of such
agent; and where a person approached by the thief as his confederate notifies
the owner or the public authorities, and, being authorized by them to do so,
assists the thief in carrying out the plan, the larceny is nevertheless
committed. It is generally held that it
is no defense to a prosecution for an illegal sale of liquor that the purchase
was made by a ‘spotter,’ detective, or hired informer; but there are cases
holding the contrary.[10]
It is fairly clear that the concept of entrapment under the American
criminal justice system bears a similarity to the concept of instigation or
inducement under the Philippine judicial setting. Such that once the criminal intent arises from
the police officers without any predisposition from the defendant to commit the
crime, both jurisdictions consider the act as illegal. Entrapment in the
In determining the occurrence of entrapment, two tests have been developed:
the subjective test and the objective test.[12]
Under the “subjective” view of entrapment, the focus is on the intent or predisposition
of the accused to commit a crime.[13]
Under the “objective” view, on the other hand, the primary focus is on the
particular conduct of law enforcement officials or their agents and the
accused’s predisposition becomes irrelevant.[14]
The government agent’s act is evaluated in the light of the standard of conduct
exercised by reasonable persons generally and whether such conduct falls below
the acceptable standard for the fair and honorable administration of justice.[15]
Courts have adopted the “objective” test in upholding the validity of a
buy-bust operation. In People v. Doria,
the Court stressed that, in applying the “objective” test, the details of the
purported transaction during the buy-bust operation must be clearly and
adequately shown, i.e., the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the
pusher, the offer to purchase, and the promise or payment of the consideration
until the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal drug subject
of the sale. We further emphasized that the “manner by which the initial
contact was made, whether or not through an informant, the offer to purchase
the drug, the payment of the ‘buy-bust’ money, and the delivery of the illegal
drug, whether to the informant alone or the police officer, must be subject of
strict scrutiny by courts to insure that law-abiding citizens are not
unlawfully induced to commit an offense.”[16]
In the case at bar, the evidence clearly shows that the police officers
used entrapment to nab Cortez in the act of selling shabu. As aptly found below, it was the
confidential informant who made initial contact with Cortez when he introduced
SPO2 Zipagan as buyer. SPO2 Zipagan then
asked to buy PhP 200 worth of shabu
and paid using the previously marked money. Cortez then gave SPO2 Zipagan a plastic sachet
containing what turned out to be shabu.
Then, upon the sending out of the
pre-set signal, Cortez was arrested. The
established sequence of events categorically shows a typical buy-bust operation
as a form of entrapment. The police
officers’ conduct was within the acceptable standard of fair and honorable
administration of justice.
Elements of the Crime Established;
Chain of Custody Observed
In his further bid for acquittal, Cortez
advances the matter of custodial chain. As
he asserted in his Brief,[17]
the apprehending police officers failed, after the buy bust, to make an
inventory of the seized item and mark the container of the substance allegedly
recovered from him, thus raising doubts as to the identity of what was seized.
We disagree.
In People
v. Pendatun, the Court reiterated the essential elements of the crime of
illegal sale of prohibited drugs: (1) the accused sold and delivered a
prohibited drug to another and (2) he knew that what he had sold and delivered
was a prohibited drug.[18]
All these elements were ably proved by
the prosecution in the instant case. The
fact of sale and eventual delivery by Cortez, as seller, of a substance later
identified as shabu to SPO2 Zipagan,
as buyer who paid PhP 200 for it, had been established. The Court considers the ensuing vivid account
of SPO2 Zipagan on this point:
Q: When you arrived at the scene or the reported
place, what transpired next, if any?
A: I asked the
other operatives to position themselves in a viewing distance and I myself[,]
together with the informant[,] proceeded to the corner of San Guillermo and
Q: How far
where your companions were from you and [the] suspect during the conduct of the
actual buy-bust?
x x x x
A: More or
less ten (10) meters.
x x x x
Q: Were you
able to in fact locate the subject?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: How were
you able to locate him[?] [Did] you know him personally before the operation?
A: Only the
informant, sir, knew the suspect.
Q: And what
transpired when you [located] the suspect?
A: I [was]
introduced by the informant to the suspect that I will buy a shabu, sir.
Q: And what
happened after that?
A: The suspect
asked me if how much I will buy, sir.
Q: What did
you tell him?
A: Only 200
pesos.
Q: And 200
pesos worth of shabu is how many in
terms of grams?
A: I could
not…….. (discontinued)
Q: You do not
know?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And what
did the subject person tell you or do after that?
A: I gave the
money and then he dipped his right hand on his right pocket and gave me on (1)
heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance.
Q: When you
said that the person gave you the one (1) transparent plastic sachet you meant
that it was actually in your possession at the precise time, you already took
possession of the sachet?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Will you
describe what was inside the plastic sachet at that time?
A: It contains
white crystalline substance, sir.
Q: And at that
very moment[,] what transpired after you have already obtained the plastic
sachet from the suspect?
A: I gave my
pre-arrange[d] signal to my other co-operatives.
Q: And what
happened next?
A: I
introduced myself to the accused and I [held] him [as] my two (2) co-operatives
helped me in holding the said accused, sir.
Q: Did you
announce your arrest on the accused?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: By the way,
what was the name of this person from whom you bought this white crystalline
substance contained in the plastic sachet?
A: He [was]
identified later on as Arsenio Macalindong Cortez.
x x x x
Q: After you
announced the arrest of the accused and you have obtained the illegal substance
and recovered the buy-bust money, to where did you bring the accused?
A: In our
office in Pasig City Police Station, sir.
Q: And [did]
you conduct an investigation?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: In
connection with the investigation conducted on the accused, what documentation
from your recollection was ever prepared?
A: He made a
request to examine the recovered evidence.
Q: Who made
the request?
A: Our
investigator, sir. x x x
Q: Are you
familiar with the signature of your police investigator? By the way, who was
the investigator who made the report?
A: PO1
Nipales.
Q: If said
request will be shown to you will you be able to identify it?
A: Yes, sir.
x x x x
Q: You
mentioned that the substance was confiscated from the accused [and] was
forwarded to the crime laboratory, is that correct?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Was there a
report given by a crime laboratory on the examination conducted?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: When was
the report returned or forwarded back to you[?] [W]as it on the same day?
A: I could not
remember.
Q: But you
were able to get a hold of the copy?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: How about
the substance, was there any markings made on said substance before it was
forwarded to the crime laboratory?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Who made
the markings?
A: I, sir.
Q: And if said
markings or the substance contained the markings is again shown to you, will
you still be able to identify [it] again?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Showing to
you this plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance with
sub-markings.
I have
this plastic sachet with white crystalline substance with markings AMC
A: Capital
letter AMC, sir, and the date the accused [was] arrested.
x x x x
Q: Aside from
that[,] were there any other markings made by you, the other markings
D-2061-03E JMP, whose markings was that?
A: I do not
know.
Q: What
relation has this piece of plastic sachet containing white crystalline
substance, is that the same plastic sachet which was taken from the accused
during the buy-bust operation?
A: Yes,
sir, this is the same evidence.
Q: Meaning,
this was the crystalline substance which was shown to you by the accused during
the buy-bust operation?
A: Yes, sir.
x x x x
Q: Do you know
what was the result of the laboratory examination?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Tell the
court what was the result?
A: It gave
positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Q: Were you
able to get hold of the Physical Science Report of the said substance?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: If said
result will be shown to you will you still be able to identify it?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: I’m showing
to you this Physical Science Report No. D-2061-03E, is this the report you were
referring to?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Can you go
over the result specifically the finding and the conclusion, please read for
the benefit of the court the contents of the findings?
A: Findings:
Qualitative findings conducted on the above-stated specimen gave positive
result to the test for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.[19] x x x
(Emphasis added.)
PO1
Espares, who provided back-up assistance to SPO2 Zipagan in the buy-bust
operation, corroborated the foregoing testimony.
Without a trace of equivocation, the trial
court held that the prosecution has proved the elements of the crime charged. The trial court wrote:
From
the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the identities of the buyer and
the seller were sufficiently shown. The object and consideration were also
identified in open court. The buy-bust money was marked and formally offered in
evidence x x x and the object which is the 0.04 gram of shabu was also identified and offered in evidence as Exhibit ‘E-1’.
The object which is the 0.04 gram of white crystalline substance was tested
positive to the tests for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug,
after a laboratory examination conducted by P/Insp. Joseph M. Perdido, a
Forensic Chemical Officer of the PNP Crime Laboratory x x x. Report No.
D-2061-03E submitted by said Forensic Chemical officer was marked and formally
offered in evidence as Exhibits ‘C’ and ‘C-1’. The testimony of the Forensic Chemical
Officer was dispensed with by both the public prosecutor and the defense
counsel after they made some stipulations. Moreover, the testimony of SPO2
Dante Zipagan as regards the transaction that took place on
Therefore,
in the opinion of the court, the elements mentioned above are sufficiently
proven by the prosecution.[20]
This brings us to the matter of the custodial
chain.
It bears stressing that in every prosecution
for illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the presentation in evidence of the
seized drug, as an integral part of the corpus
delicti, is most material.[21] It is, therefore, essential that the identity
of the prohibited drug be proved with moral certainty. Even more than this, what must also be
established with the same degree of certitude is the fact that the substance
bought or seized during the buy-bust operation is the same item offered in
court as exhibit. The chain of custody
requirement performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts
concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.[22]
As a mode 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. In
context, this would ideally cover the testimony about every link in the chain,
from seizure of the prohibited drug up to the time it is offered in evidence,
in such a way that everyone who touched the exhibit would describe how and from
whom it was received, to include, as much as possible, a description of the
condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain.[23]
To be sure, testimony about a perfect chain is
not always the standard because it is almost always impossible to obtain an
unbroken chain. Cognizant of this fact, the Implementing Rules and Regulations
(IRR) of RA 9165 on the handling and disposition of seized dangerous drugs
provide as follows:
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:
(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 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 x x x. (Emphasis supplied.)
A close examination of the IRR of RA 9165
readily reveals that the custodial chain rule admits of exceptions. Thus, contrary to the brazen assertions of Cortez,
the prescriptions of the IRR’s Sec. 21 need not be followed with pedantic rigor
as a condition sine qua non for a successful prosecution for illegal
sale of dangerous drugs. Non-compliance
with Sec. 21 does not, by itself, render an accused’s arrest illegal or the items
seized/confiscated from the accused inadmissible in evidence.[24]
What is essential is “the preservation
of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same
would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the
accused.”[25]
In the instant case, there had been substantial
compliance with the legal requirements on the handling of the seized item. Its
integrity and evidentiary value had not been diminished. The chain of custody
of the drugs subject matter of the case has not been shown to have been broken.
The factual milieu of the case yields the following: After SPO2 Zipagan
confiscated the 0.04 gram of shabu in question, as well as the marked
money, following Cortez’s arrest, the seized sachet of suspected shabu was without delay brought to the
In Malillin
v. People,[26]
the Court stressed the importance of the testimonies of all persons, if
available, who handled the specimen to establish the chain of custody. Thus, the prosecution offered the testimony
of SPO2 Zipagan who first had custody of the seized shabu.
The testimony of the next handling officer, P/Insp. Perdido, was, however,
dispensed with after the public prosecutor and the defense counsel stipulated
that Exhibit “E-1”[27]
is the same specimen mentioned in Exhibits “B-1”[28]
and “C-1,”[29]
and that the said specimen was regularly examined by the said witness.[30]
It would, thus, appear that the chain in the
custody of the illicit drug purchased from Cortez had been prima facie
established as unbroken. Or at the very
least, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item had not, under
the premises, been compromised.
Defense of Denial is Weak
Cortez’s main defense of denial cannot prevail
over the affirmative and credible testimony of SP02 Zipagan pointing Cortez as
the seller of the prohibited substance. Denial,
if not substantiated by clear and convincing proof, is negative and
self-serving evidence and of little, if any, weight in law. As it can easily be fabricated, in fact a
common standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from violations of
RA 9165,[31]
denial is inherently weak.[32]
And the Court is at loss to understand
how Cortez can with a straight face set up the defense of denial after having
been caught in possession of the prohibited substance for which he received PhP
200 from SPO2 Zipagan.
The conclusion may perhaps be different if the
police authorities have a motive in falsely charging Cortez with illegal
peddling of shabu. But the element of ill motive does not obtain
under the premises, as determined by the trial court:
Moreover, SPO2 Dante Zipagan and PO1 Michael Espares are police officers
who are presumed to have regularly performed their duties in the absence of
proof to the contrary (see Sec. 3(m), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court). The evidence offered by the defense failed to
show any ill motive from the prosecution witnesses that would impel them to
arrest the accused, Arsenio M. Cortez.[33]
Lest it be overlooked, Cortez declared not
knowing any of the arresting police officers, having first met them only when
they arrested him. This reality argues against the idea that these operatives
would falsely testify, or plant evidence, against him. Cortez, on cross-examination, testified, as
follows:
Q: Did Zipagan
approach you to ask for anything?
A: No, sir.
Q: Did any of
the three (3) other police officers who arrested you x x x [approach] you and
[ask you for] anything?
A: No, sir.
Q: Did you
previously know these three (3) police officers previous to your arrest?
A: No, sir.
Q: Do you know
if all these four (4) police officers had an [axe] to grind against you or you
had any misunderstanding against with them previous to your arrest?
A: This is the
first time I saw the police officers.[34]
In all then, we uphold the presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duties and find that the prosecution has
discharged its burden of proving Cortez’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The CA Decision in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02269
finding accused-appellant Arsenio Cortez guilty of the crime charged is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
Associate Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice Associate Justice
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
I attest 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.
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
[14] See People v. Smith, 31
[15] Keaton v. State, 253
[18] G.R. No. 148822, July 12, 2004, 434 SCRA 148, 155-156; citing People v. Cercado, G.R. No. 144494, July 26, 2002, 385 SCRA 277; People v. Pacis, G.R. No. 146309, July 18, 2002, 384 SCRA 684.
[24] People v. Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, July 28, 2008, 560 SCRA 430, 448; citing People v. Del Monte, G.R. No. 179940, April 23, 2008, 552 SCRA 627.
[27] CA rollo, p. 4. One (1) pc. heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance weighing 0.04 gram.