THIRD
DIVISION
|
GWYN QUINICOT y CURATIVO, Petitioner, - versus - PEOPLE OF THE Respondent. |
|
G.
R. No. 179700 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Chairperson, CHICO-NAZARIO, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA and PERALTA, JJ. Promulgated: June 22, 2009 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CHICO-NAZARIO,
J.:
Before Us is an appeal which seeks the
reversal of the Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals dated 26 October 2006 in CA-G.R. CR No. 27835 affirming in toto the Joint Judgment[2] of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Negros Oriental, Branch 30, Dumaguete City,
in Criminal Cases No. 14855-14856, and its Resolution[3]
dated 6 September 2007 denying petitioner Gwyn C. Quinicot’s Motion for
Reconsideration.
Two informations both dated
Crim.
Case No. 14855
That on or about the 21st day of September, 2000 in the City of Dumaguete, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, not being then authorized by law, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, have and keep in his possession two (2) transparent plastic sachets containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride also known as shabu weighing more or less 5.1 grams.[6]
Crim.
Case No. 14856
That on or about the 21st day of September, 2000 in the City of Dumaguete, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, not being then authorized by law, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, sell and deliver to a poseur buyer (1) small transparent plastic sachet containing suspected Methamphetamine hydrochloride also known as shabu weighing more or less 0.2 grams.[7]
When arraigned, petitioner, assisted by counsel de parte, pleaded “Not Gulity” to the crimes charged. After the pre-trial conference, the cases
were tried jointly.
The prosecution presented three witnesses: (1) Police Officer (PO) 1
Domingo Marchan, member of the Philippine National Police (PNP) assigned at the
701st Criminal Investigation and Detection Team; (2) PO2 Allen June
Germodo, member of the PNP assigned at the Provincial Narcotics Office of
Negros Oriental; and (3) Police Inspector (P/Insp.) Josephine S. Llena,
Forensic Chemist, PNP Crime Laboratory.
From their collective testimonies, the version of the prosecution is as
follows:
At around P300.00 worth of shabu.
PO1 Marchan was casually introduced to the petitioner as Dondon. A team was formed by team leader Police
Senior Inspector (PSI) Crisaleo Tolentino to conduct a buy-bust operation
against petitioner. PO1 Marchan was
designated as the poseur-buyer, while the other members who served as back-ups
were PO3 Manuel Sanchez, Police Inspector Rolando Caña and PO2 Allen Germodo. PSI Tolentino gave PO1 Marchan three one-
hundred peso bills[8] which he
marked with his initials.[9]
At around P300.00. Petitioner
answered in the affirmative. PO1 Marchan
gave the P300.00 marked money, and in return, petitioner gave him a plastic
sachet[10]
containing a white crystalline substance.
When PO1 Marchan executed the pre-arranged signal – touching his hat –
PO2 Germodo rushed towards petitioner and PO1 Marchan and identified themselves
as police officers. Petitioner was
informed he violated the law on selling shabu. PO2 Germodo bodily searched petitioner and
recovered two plastic sachets[11]
from the brown belt purse of the latter.
He likewise recovered from petitioner the marked money, a disposable
lighter, and a tooter.[12] The petitioner was brought to the police
station. PO1 Marchan issued a receipt[13]
for the items recovered from the him.
Per request[14]
of PSI Tolentino, the three plastic sachets containing white crystalline
substance were sent to the Negros Oriental Provincial Crime Laboratory for forensic
laboratory examination. P/Insp. Llena
conducted the chemical examination on the following: (1) specimen A[15]
with a weight of 0.119 gram; (2) specimen B[16]
with a weight of 2.1832 grams; and (3) specimen C[17]
with a weight of 2.6355 grams. The
results as contained in Chemistry Report No. D-146-2000[18] showed that the specimens contained
methylamphetamine hydrochloride.
PO1 Marchan disclosed that prior to
For the defense, Joel D. Patola, a Minister of the Philippine General
Council of the Assemblies of God, and the petitioner, an employee of the
Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), took the stand.
Petitioner alleges that no buy-bust operation occurred and that the
evidence – shabu – allegedly
confiscated from him was planted evidence.
Petitioner narrated that at around
At
At the police station, he was brought to the Office of the Central
Intelligence and Detection Group located at the back of the station. He was made to sit on a chair with Narvic,
PO1 Marchan and PO2 Germodo surrounding him.
While the two police officers were in the office of PSI Tolentino, Narvic
told him to settle the matter for P50,000.00. He asked Narvic what settlement he was
talking about, then told him the latter had no money and would not give the
amount because he had not committed anything wrong. When PO1 Marchan came out, petitioner asked
permission to call his parents. He
requested his parents to come to the police station, and they arrived at
At
Petitioner claimed that Orlyn was the best friend of his sister, while he
knew Narvic to be an informer of the Presidential Anti Organized Crime headed
by a certain Captain Macabali. He
alleged that Narvic once gave him money to buy shabu from a certain Ampil, and for that he was arrested on
Petitioner explained he did not call the attention of Joel Patola when he
was forced to board the pedicab, because he was afraid. He said he did not file a complaint against
the two police officers who arrested him and that, prior to 21 September 2000,
he did not know said police officers and had no misunderstanding or quarrel
with them.
Joel Patola[20]
narrated that at
In its Joint Judgment dated
WHEREFORE, finding the accused Gwyn Quinicot y Curativo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal possession of shabu in Criminal Case No. 14855 in violation of Section 16, Article III, Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, and of the offense of illegal selling of shabu (sic) Criminal Case No. 14856 in violation of Section 15, Article III, Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, there being no mitigating or aggravating circumstance, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he is hereby sentenced to suffer in each case imprisonment ranging from a minimum of six (6) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor up to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correc(c)ional as maximum penalty.
All the aforestated dangerous drugs subject matter of these cases are hereby declared forfeited in favor of the government to be disposed in accordance with law.
Costs against the accused.[21]
The trial court found petitioner to have violated Sections 15 and 16 of
Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, when he sold one plastic sachet containing .0119
gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride to poseur-buyer PO1 Marchan; and that PO2
Germodo recovered from petitioner, inter alia, the marked money used in
the buy-bust operation amounting to P300.00 and two more plastic sachets
containing 2.1832 grams and 2.6355 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).
In convicting petitioner, the trial court gave more credence to the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and upheld the buy-bust operation
conducted against petitioner. The
defense of frame-up invoked by petitioner was not believed by the trial court.
Aggrieved with the decision, petitioner appealed his conviction to the
Court of Appeals assigning as sole error the following:
THE
On
Petitioner is now before this Court seeking a review of the decision of
the Court of Appeals, arguing that the appellate court gravely erred in
convicting him on the ground that his guilt had not been proven beyond
reasonable doubt.
Petitioner argues that the testimonies of PO1 Marchan and PO2 Germodo are
incredible and untrustworthy. He denies
that a buy-bust operation took place, and that the evidence against him is
planted evidence.
We find the testimonies of PO1 Marchan and PO2 Germodo credible and
straightforward. It is a fundamental
rule that the trial court’s findings that are factual in nature and that involve
credibility are accorded respect when no glaring errors; gross misapprehension
of facts; or speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered
from such findings. The reason for this
is that the trial court was in a better position to decide the credibility of
witnesses, having heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and
manner of testifying during the trial.[25] The rule finds an even more stringent
application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals.[26] There being no compelling reasons to deviate from
the findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals, we stick by their
findings.
The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties
likewise stands in this case. Said
presumption was not overcome, as there was no evidence showing that the two
police officers were impelled by improper motive. As admitted by petitioner, prior to
In asserting that there was no buy-bust operation and that he was framed,
petitioner asserts that (1) a surveillance was not conducted; (2) it was highly
unbelievable that PO1 Marchan would know that petitioner was a drug pusher and
that the former, a total stranger, would sell shabu to the latter; (3) it was unlikely that the buy-bust
operation was conducted at noon; (4) the confidential informant was not
presented in court; and (5) the receipt of property seized was signed only by
PO1 Marchan without any witnesses.
These assertions will not exonerate the petitioner.
Settled is the rule that the absence of a prior surveillance or test buy
does not affect the legality of the buy-bust operation. There is no textbook method of conducting
buy-bust operations. The Court has left
to the discretion of police authorities the selection of effective means to
apprehend drug dealers.[27] A prior surveillance, much less a lengthy
one, is not necessary, especially where the police operatives are accompanied
by their informant during the entrapment.[28] Flexibility is a trait of good police work.[29] We have held that when time is of the essence,
the police may dispense with the need for prior surveillance.[30] In the instant case, having
been accompanied by the informant to the person who was peddling the dangerous
drugs, the policemen need not have conducted any prior surveillance before they
undertook the buy-bust operation.
Petitioner claims that there was no buy-bust operation because the same
was hurriedly planned, and the briefing of the back-up (PO2 Germodo) was done
for only two to three minutes.
We do not agree. As above
explained, there is no textbook method of conducting buy-bust operations. The Court has
left to the discretion of police authorities the selection of effective means
to apprehend drug dealers. If a police operation requires immediate implementation, time
is of the essence, and sometimes only hasty preparations are
possible.[31] The fact that the police officer who acted as
back-up (or any other member of the team) was briefed only for a few minutes
does not prove that there was no buy-bust operation that happened. A buy-bust operation can be carried out after
a long period of planning or, as in the case on hand, abruptly or forthwith,
without much preparation. The conduct
thereof depends on the opportunity that may arise under the circumstances. Thus, the period of planning for such
operation cannot be dictated to the police authorities who are to undertake
such operation. In the case at bar, the
buy-bust operation was planned in less than an hour prior to the buy-bust
operation, after the informant contacted petitioner and told him that there was
a buyer. Under the situation, the
briefing of a team member for only a few minutes cannot be taken against the
buy-bust team, for the team had to cope with what it had at that instant.
This Court finds that it was not improbable for petitioner to sell shabu to a total stranger like PO1
Marchan. We quote with approval the
trial court’s finding on the matter:
The contention of the accused x x x that it would be highly improbable for PO1 Domingo Marchan a complete stranger to the accused to offer to buy shabu from the latter is not tenable. What matters in drug related cases is not the existing familiarity between the seller and the buyer, but their agreement and the acts constituting the sale and delivery of the dangerous drug (People v. Jaymalin, 214 SCRA 685). Besides, drug pushers, especially small quantity or retail pushers, sell their prohibited wares to anyone who can pay for the same, be they strangers or not (People v. Madriaga, 211 SCRA 711). It is of common knowledge that pushers, especially small-time dealers, peddle prohibited drugs in the open like any articles of commerce (People v. Merabueno, 239 SCRA 197). Drug pushers do no confine their nefarious trade to known customers and complete strangers are accommodated provided they have the money to pay (People v. Solon, 244 SCRA 554). It is therefore, not unusual for a stranger like PO1 Domingo Marchan to offer to buy shabu and for Gwyn Quinicot to entertain the offer after two days from their initial meeting especially in this case when the subsequent transaction was firmed up thru telephone facilitated by a civilian informant.[32]
It is also not surprising that the buy-bust operation was conducted at
noontime. As we have ruled, drug-pushing
when done on a small scale, as in this case, belongs to that class of crimes
that may be committed at any time and at any place. After the offer to buy is accepted and the
exchange is made, the illegal transaction is completed in a few minutes. The fact that the parties are in a public
place and in the presence of other people may not always discourage them from
pursuing their illegal trade, as these factors may even serve to camouflage the
same.[33]
Petitioner’s contention, that the non-presentation of the confidential
informant was fatal, is untenable. The
presentation of an informant is not a
requisite for the prosecution of drug cases.[34]
Police authorities rarely, if ever,
remove the cloak of confidentiality with which they surround their
poseur-buyers and informers, since their usefulness will be over the moment
they are presented in court. Moreover,
drug dealers do not look kindly upon squealers and informants. It is understandable why, as much as
permitted, their identities are kept secret.[35]
The non-presentation
of the confidential informant is not fatal
to the prosecution. Informants are
usually not presented in court because of the need to hide their identity and
preserve their invaluable service to the police. It is well-settled that except when the petitioner
vehemently denies selling prohibited
drugs and there are material inconsistencies in the testimonies of the
arresting officers, or there are
reasons to believe that the arresting officers had motives to testify falsely against the petitioner, or that only the informant
was the poseur-buyer who actually witnessed the entire transaction, the
testimony of the informant may be dispensed with as it will
merely be corroborative of the apprehending officers' eyewitness testimonies. There is no need to present the informant in
court where the sale was actually witnessed and adequately proved by prosecution
witnesses.[36] The testimony of an informant
who witnessed the illegal sale of shabu
is not essential for conviction and may be dispensed with if the poseur-buyer
testified on the same, because the informant’s testimony
would merely corroborate that of the poseur-buyer.[37] What can be fatal is the non‑presentation
of the poseur-buyer, if there is no other eyewitness to the illicit transaction[38]
-- not the non‑presentation of the informant whose testimony under
certain circumstances would be merely corroborative or cumulative.[39]
In the case before us, it is not indispensable
for the confidential informant to take the witness stand, considering that the
poseur-buyer testified regarding the illegal sale made by petitioner. Furthermore, none
of the above circumstances that necessitate the presentation of the informant obtains
in this case. While petitioner denies selling
shabu, there are no material inconsistencies in the testimonies of the
arresting officers. Petitioner failed to
show that the two police officers had motives to testify falsely against him. As admitted by petitioner, prior to
The Receipt of Property Seized[40]
issued by PO1 Domingo Marchan was validly made.
It enumerated the items – three plastic sachets containing white
crystalline substance, and other paraphernalia – recovered from petitioner’s
body after he was arrested for selling shabu
to the poseur-buyer. The lack of witnesses
signing the same, petitioner claims, is evidence of a frame-up.
We do not agree. The two witnesses were not required to sign
the receipt. This two-witness rule
applies only to searches -- made under authority of a search warrant -- of a
house, room, or any other premises in the absence of the lawful occupant
thereof or any member of his family.[41] In the case at bar, there was no search
warrant issued and no house, room or premises searched.
Petitioner’s allegations of
frame-up and extortion fall under the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Having been caught in flagrante
delicto, his identity as seller and possessor of the shabu can no longer be disputed.
Against the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, petitioner’s
plain denial of the offenses charged, unsubstantiated by any credible and
convincing evidence, must simply fail.[42] Allegations
of frame-up and extortion by the police officers are common and standard
defenses in most dangerous drugs cases. They
are, however, viewed by this Court with disfavor, for such defenses can be
easily concocted and fabricated. To
prove such defenses, the evidence must be clear and convincing.[43]
The police officers are presumed to
have performed their duties in accord with law.
While such presumption is not conclusive, petitioner was, however,
burdened to dispute the same by clear and convincing evidence. In this case, the evidence of the petitioner was
utterly insufficient and unconvincing. He
failed to provide by clear and convincing evidence that he was framed and that the
police officers were extorting money from him.
His allegations remain as such, unsubstantiated by credible and persuasive
evidence.
Petitioner likewise submits, under the
facts as presented by the prosecution, that he was instigated to sell shabu
to PO1 Marchan. We find no instigation
in this case. The established rule is
that when an accused is charged with the sale of illicit drugs, he cannot set
up the following defenses, viz: (1) that facilities for the commission
of the crime were intentionally placed in his way; or (2) that the criminal act was done at the
solicitation of the decoy or poseur-buyer seeking to expose his criminal act;
or (3) that police authorities feigning complicity in the act were present and
apparently assisted in its commission. The sale of contraband is a kind of offense
habitually committed, and the solicitation simply furnishes evidence of the
criminal’s course of conduct. [44]
In the case at bar,
after the informant called petitioner informing the latter that there was a buyer
of shabu, a plan of entrapment was
made by the policemen. The buy-bust operation
was organized specifically to test the veracity of the informant’s tip and to
arrest the malefactor if the report proved to be true. The prosecution evidence positively showed
that the petitioner agreed to sell P300.00
worth of shabu to the poseur-buyer
and was caught in flagrante delicto.
Petitioner was charged with violations of Sections 15 and 16 of Republic Act
No. 6425. He was charged with violation
of Section 15 for selling 0.119 gram of shabu. The elements necessary for the prosecution of
illegal sale of drugs are: (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the
object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the
payment therefor.[45] What is material to the prosecution for
illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction took place,
coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.[46]
The evidence for the prosecution
showed the presence of all these elements.
The poseur-buyer and his back-up described how the buy-bust happened,
and the shabu sold was presented and
identified in court. The poseur-buyer,
PO1 Domingo Marchan, identified petitioner as the seller of the shabu.
His testimony was corroborated by PO2 Allen June Germodo. The white crystalline substance weighing 0.119
gram, which was bought from petitioner for P300.00, was found to contain
shabu per Chemistry Report No.
D-146-2000.
In this jurisdiction, the conduct of a
buy-bust operation is a common and accepted mode of apprehending those involved
in illegal sale of prohibited or regulated drugs. It has been proven to be an effective way of
unveiling the identities of drug dealers and of luring them out of obscurity.[47] Unless there is clear and convincing evidence
that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or
were not properly performing their duty, their testimonies on the operation
deserve full faith and credit.[48]
Petitioner was likewise charged under Section 16 of Republic Act No. 6425
with possession of two sachets (2.1832 grams and 2.6355 grams) of shabu with a total weight of 4.8187
grams. In illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the elements are: (1) the
accused is in possession of an item or object that is identified to be a
prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the
accused freely and consciously possesses the said drug.[49] All these elements have been established.
PO2 Allen June Germodo recounted how
he recovered the two plastic sachets containing a white crystalline substance,
and other drug paraphernalia from petitioner after conducting a body search on
the latter after his arrest for selling a sachet containing a white crystalline
substance to the poseur-buyer. The
substance in the plastic sachets was shabu
as confirmed by Chemistry Report No. D-146-2000. Because petitioner had been caught in flagrante delicto, the
arresting officers were duty-bound to apprehend the culprit immediately and to search him for anything that may be used as proof of the
commission of the crime. The search, being an incident of a lawful arrest, needed no warrant
for its validity.[50]
Petitioner’s claim that the two
informations charging him should be voided, because he was not assisted by
counsel during the inquest proceedings, does not hold water. From the records, it is clear that the prayer
of petitioner for a regular preliminary investigation -- despite having been
validly arrested without a warrant, and without executing a waiver of the
provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code -- was still granted by the
trial court. In the preliminary
investigation conducted, petitioner was duly assisted by counsel. Unfortunately for petitioner, the prosecutor
did not find any reason to alter or amend the informations filed.
Finally, we determine the proper imposable penalty. Both courts imposed on petitioner the indeterminate
penalty of six months and one day of arresto
mayor, as minimum, to four years and two months of prision correccional, as maximum, for selling 0.119 gram of shabu. The
sale of less than 200 grams of methampethamine hydrochloride,
a regulated drug, is punishable with a penalty ranging from prision
correccional to reclusion temporal, depending on the quantity. The proper penalty to be imposed for the illegal sale of 0.119
gram of shabu would be prision correcional, pursuant to the
second paragraph of Section 20 of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Section
17 of Republic Act No. 7659 and in consonance with the doctrine laid down in People v. Simon.[51]
Further, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the imposable penalty
should be the indeterminate sentence of six months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four years and two months of prision correccional, as maximum. The
penalty imposed should thus be modified accordingly.
Both lower courts likewise found that petitioner possessed 4.8187 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride and sentenced petitioner to an
indeterminate penalty of six months and one day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four years and two months of prision correccional, as maximum. As the Court ruled in People v. Tira[52]:
Under Section 16,
Article III of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended, the imposable penalty of
possession of a regulated drug, less than 200 grams, in this case, shabu, is prision correccional to reclusion
perpetua. Based on the quantity of
the regulated drug subject of the offense, the imposable penalty shall be as
follows:
QUANTITY IMPOSABLE PENALTY
Less than one (1)
gram to 49.25 grams prision
correccional
49.26 grams to 98.50
grams prision
mayor
98.51 grams to 147.75
grams reclusion
temporal
147.76 grams to 199
grams reclusion
perpetua
Considering
that the shabu found in the possession
of the petitioner was 4.8187 grams, the imposable penalty for the crime is prision correccional. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and
modifying the penalty imposed by the lower courts, the petitioner is sentenced
to suffer an indeterminate penalty of six months of arresto
mayor, as minimum, to four years and two months of prision correccional, as maximum, for violation of Section 16
of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended.
In
both cases, no fine is imposable since a fine can be imposed
as a conjunctive penalty only if the penalty is reclusion perpetua to
death.[53]
WHEREFORE,
all the foregoing considered, the decision dated 26 October 2006 of the Court
of Appeals affirming the convictions of petitioner Gwyn
C. Quinicot for the sale of 0.119
gram of shabu and
possession of 4.8187 grams of shabu, is hereby AFFIRMED
with the MODIFICATION that
the penalty of imprisonment imposed on petitioner
for each case should be the indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of arresto
mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision
correccional, as maximum.
SO
ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOAssociate Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
Associate Justice
Chairperson
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice |
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
|
|
|
DIOSDADO M. PERALTAAssociate
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.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson,
Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s
Attestation, it is hereby certified 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.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Agustin S. Dizon with Associate Justices Pampio A. Abarintos and Priscilla Baltazar-Padilla, concurring. Rollo, pp. 36-45.
[2]
[3]
[4] Criminal Case No. 14855 – possession.
[5] Criminal Case No. 14856 – sale.
[6] Records, p. 16.
[7]
[8] Exhs. F, G and H; records, p. 12.
[9] Exhs. F-1, G-1 and H-1; id. at 13.
[10] Exh. E – Crim. Case No. 14856.
[11] Exhs. E and F – Crim. Case No. 14855.
[12] Exh. I – Crim. Case No. 14855.
[13] Exh. A – Both cases.
[14] Exh. O – Both cases.
[15] Exh. E – Crim. Case No. 14856.
[16] Exh. E - Crim. Case No. 14855.
[17] Exh. F – Crim. Case No. 14855.
[18] Exh. D – Both cases.
[19] Exh. I.
[20] Sometimes spelled as “Patula.”
[21] Records, pp. 152-153.
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25] People v. Julian-Fernandez, 423 Phil. 895, 910 (2001).
[26] People
v. Cabugatan, G.R. No. 172019,
[27] People
v. Li Yin
[28] People v. Gonzales, 430 Phil. 504, 514 (2002).
[29] People v. Cadley, 469 Phil. 515, 525 (2004).
[30] People v. Eugenio, 443 Phil. 411, 423 (2003).
[31] People v. Li Yin
[32] Records,
p. 151.
[33] People v. Paco, G.R. No. 76893,
[34] People v. De los Reyes, G.R. No. 106874,
[35] People v. Cheng Ho Chua, 364 Phil. 497,
513 (1999).
[36] People v. Doria, 361 Phil. 595, 622 (1999).
[37] People v.
[38] People v. Polizon, G.R. No. 84917,
[39] People v. Li Wai Cheung, G.R. Nos. 90440-42,
[40] Exh.
A – both cases; rollo, p. 81.
[41] Rules
of Court, Rule 126, Sec. 8.
Sec.
8. Search of house, room, or premises to be made in presence of two
witnesses. – No search of a house, room,
or any other premises shall be made except in the presence of the lawful
occupant thereof or any member of his family or in the absence of the latter,
two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality.
[42] People
v. Sy, G.R. No. 171397,
[43] People v. Yong Fung Yuen, 467 Phil. 656,
674 (2004).
[44] People v. Gonzales, supra note 28.
[45] People v. Adam, 459 Phil. 676, 684 (2003).
[46] People
v. Nicolas, G.R. No. 170234,
[47] People v. Cabugatan, supra note 26.
[48] People
v. Del Mundo, G.R. No. 169141,
[49] People v. Khor, 366 Phil. 762, 795 (1999).
[50] People v. Salazar, 334 Phil. 556, 570 (1997).
[51] G.R.
No. 93028,
[52] G.R.
No. 139615,
[53] People v. Simon, supra note 51 at 573; People v. Elamparo, 385 Phil. 1052,
1065-1066 (2000); People v. Concepcion,
414 Phil. 247, 266 (2001); People v.
Medina, 354 Phil. 447, 463 (1998).