Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila
|
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, -versus- FERNANDO
VILLAMIN Y SAN JOSE ALIAS ANDOY, Accused-Appellant. |
G.R.
No. 175590 Present: CORONA, J., Chairperson, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, PERALTA, and MENDOZA, JJ. Promulgated: February 9, 2010 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
PERALTA, J.:
This is an appeal from the Decision[1]
dated July 19, 2006 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00967,
affirming the Decision[2]
dated May 7, 2003 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 20, in Criminal Case
No. 2332-M-2002, finding accused-appellant Fernando Villamin guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.)
9165.
The facts, as culled from the
records, are the following:
Members of the Drug Enforcement
Unit (DEU) of San Jose del Monte Police Station received a report from a
civilian informant and from the Barangay Captain of Barangay Gumaok, San Jose
del Monte, Bulacan sometime during the first week of August 2002, that a
certain Fernando Villamin, alias “Andoy,”
was engaged in the sale of shabu[3]
in that same place. [4]
Thus, a team composed of Senior Police Officer 2 (SPO2) Mario Llarinas, Eduardo
Ocampo, a police aide, and a civilian asset, was formed to conduct a test-buy
operation of shabu from accused-appellant.[5]
A civilian asset of the DEU and
Police Aide Eduardo Ocampo, on August 15, 2002, went to accused-appellant in
order to buy shabu.
Accused-appellant informed them that he ran out of stock and asked them
to return the following day. When the
civilian asset and Eduardo Ocampo returned the next day, accused-appellant
informed them that the shabu was not yet available and again suggested that
they return the following day.[6]
On
August 17, 2002, a team -- composed of SPO4 Abelardo Taruc; Police Officers 2 (PO2)
Mario Llarinas and Nasser Saiyadi;
members of the DEU; and four (4) police aides, namely; Eduardo Ocampo, Jude
Illana, Glendo Villamor, and Jerson Bausa -- was then formed to conduct a
buy-bust operation directed at accused-appellant.[7] The designated leader and poseur-buyer
was SPO4 Taruc.[8]
In connection therewith, SPO4 Taruc
prepared two P100.00 marked bills before the
buy-bust operation.[9]
The
team then proceeded to Barangay Gumaok, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan at around
11:00 o'clock in the morning. SPO4 Taruc
and the civilian asset approached the house of accused-appellant, while the
rest positioned themselves at strategic locations near the house. The civilian asset introduced SPO4 Taruc to
accused-appellant and told the latter that SPO4 Taruc wanted to buy shabu worth
P200.00. Accused-appellant responded, saying, “Meron
na, meron na.”[10] Afterwards, accused-appellant entered his
house. When accused-appellant opened the
door of the house, SPO4 Taruc noticed that there were several people sniffing
shabu inside the same house. After a few
minutes, accused-appellant came out of his house holding a small packet/plastic
sachet. Accused-appelant approached SPO4
Taruc, and the latter handed the former the two P100.00 marked bills. Thereafter, accused-appellant gave the
plastic sachet he was holding to SPO4 Taruc.[11]
SPO4
Taruc, after making sure that the content of the plastic sachet was indeed shabu,
held the hands of accused-appellant and placed him under arrest. Accused-appellant was, thereafter, frisked
and the marked money, along with six more sachets of shabu, were seized from him.
As a signal to the other members of the buy-bust operation team that the
transaction was already completed, SPO4 Taruc placed his hand on his head. Hence, the rest of the team hurried to
apprehend accused-appellant and the other people inside the house. However, the
others scampered to different directions.[12] The police officers and their aides were able
to apprehend only two women, namely: Alma Frial, accused-appellant's neighbor,
and Joselyn Patilano-Cabardo, accused-appellant's live-in partner.[13]
Also recovered inside the house of
accused-appellant were six other sachets of shabu and shabu
paraphernalia. Subsequently,
accused-appellant, Alma Frial, and Joselyn Patilano-Cabardo, as well as the
evidence recovered, were brought to the police headquarters where the members
of the buy-bust operation team also prepared their joint affidavits.[14]
The seven (7) plastic sachets of shabu,
including the one bought from accused-appellant during the buy-bust operation,
as well as the drug paraphernalia, were referred to the Philippine National
Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory.[15]
Forensic Chemist, PNP Inspector Nellson Sta. Maria, after conducting a series
of tests to determine the contents of the gathered pieces of evidence, came out
with the following findings:
SPECIMEN SUBMITTED:
A - One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with markings “AT-FV”
containing 0.145 gram of white crystalline substance.
x x x
FINDINGS:
Qualitative examination conducted on the above stated specimens gave
POSITIVE result to the test for the presence of Methylamphetamine
hydrochloride,[16] a
regulated drug.[17]
Resultantly,
three separate Informations were filed charging accused-appellant, and the
others who were caught during the buy-bust operation, with violation of Secs.
5, 6 and 11, Art. II of R.A. 9165, which read, as follows:
Criminal Case No. 2331-M-2002
The undersigned City Prosecutor accuses Fernando Villamin y San Jose
alias Andoy of violation of Section 11, Art. II of R.A. 9165, otherwise known
as “The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,” committed as follows:
That on or about the 17th day of August, 2002, in San Jose
del Monte City, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law and
legal justification, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
have in his possession and control six (6) heat-sealed transparent plastic
sachets containing Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride having a total weight of
1,042 grams, which is a regulated drug.
Contrary to law.
Criminal Case No. 2332-M-2002
The
undersigned City Prosecutor accuses Fernando Villamin y San Jose alias Andoy of
Violation of Section 5, Art. II of R. A. 9165, otherwise known as “The
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,” committed as follows:
That
on or about the 17th day of August, 2002, in San Jose del Monte
City, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law and legal
justification, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell,
deliver dispatch in transit and transport one (1) heat-sealed transparent
plastic sachet containing Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride weighing .145 gram,
which is a regulated drug.
Contrary to law.
Criminal
Case No. 2333-M-2002
The
undersigned City Prosecutor accuses Fernando Villamin y San Jose alias Andoy of
Violation of Section 6, Art. II of R. A. 9165, otherwise known as “The
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,” committed as follows:
That
on or about the 17th day of August, 2002, San Jose del Monte City,
province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law and legal
justification, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously openly
maintain his residence located at Brgy. Gumaok East, this City, as drug den
where drugs are administered/sold, dispensed and used.
Contrary to law.
On September 4, 2002, accused-appellant
pleaded Not Guilty to all the charges against him. Thereafter, trial ensued.
The Prosecution presented the
testimonies of Police Officer 3 (PO3) Nasser Saiyadi,[18]
SPO4 Abelardo Taruc,[19]
SPO2 Mario Llarina,[20]
and Police Aide Eduardo Ocampo[21]
who testified as to the facts earlier narrated.
The
defense, on the other hand, presented the testimonies of accused-appellant[22]
and his live-in partner, Joselyn Patilano-Cabardo.[23] According to accused-appellant, on August 17,
2002, around 7:00 o'clock in the morning, he was having breakfast inside his
house at Barangay Gumaok, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan, when three persons
entered his house through the kitchen door.
Alma Prial, one of the three persons, asked accused-appellant if she and
her companions could stay in his house because somebody was chasing them, and
said that one of her companions was in trouble.
Accused-appellant refused the request of Alma for fear of being
implicated in whatever trouble Alma and her two companions were involved. Accused-appellant added that Joselyn
Patilano-Cabardo, his live-in partner, overheard the above conversation and
told the former not to allow Alma Frial and her companions to stay in their
house. Accused-appellant, in turn, told
Alma Frial about the sentiments of his live-in partner.
Later on, as narrated by
accused-appellant, somebody kicked the kitchen door of his house. Three men entered as the door opened, with
one of them saying, “Walang kikilos, dyan ka lang.” The two other men immediately proceeded to
the room of accused-appellant and Cabardo.
Accused-appellant was then asked, “Nasaan na yung mga kasama mo?”
To this he replied that nobody else was inside the house except he and his
live-in partner. Upon realizing the
commotion, accused-appellant's live-in partner shouted, “Wala kayong
karapatan na pumasok dito.”
Meanwhile, somebody outside the
house shouted, “Mayroong tao dito.”
Thereafter, four persons, one of them Alma Frial, entered
accused-appellant's house. One of the
men who earlier barged inside the house of accused-appellant said, “Sinungaling
ka, ang sabi mo hindi nanggaling dito yang mga taong iyan.” Joselyn Patilano-Cabardo tried to help
accused-appellant but another man said, “Isa ka pa, maingay ka, kasama ka
rin.” It was then that SPO4 Taruc
ordered, “Dalhin na ninyo iyan.” However, Cabardo said, “Bakit ninyo
kami dadalhin, wala naman kaming kasalanan?”
In
short, accused-appellant denied that he was caught selling shabu, a
denial which Joselyn Patilano-Cabardo corroborated.
The RTC found accused-appellant
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A.
9165 in Criminal Case No. 2332-M-2002, but acquitted him of the other charges. The dispositive portion of the trial court's
decision reads:
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
(1)
In Criminal Case No. 2332-M-2002, the Court finds accused Fernando Villamin
y San Jose, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 5,
Article II of R. A. 9165 and hereby sentences him to life imprisonment. He
is also ordered to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,00.00);
(2)
In Criminal Cases Nos. 2331-M-2002 and 2333-M-2002, the Court finds that the
prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of accused
Fernando Villamin y San Jose of the crimes charged and he is therefore
acquitted;
(3)
For insufficiency of evidence, the Court hereby acquits accused Joselyn
Patilano-Cabardo and Alma Frial y Caluntod in Criminal Case No. 2334-M-2002.
The
dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia submitted as evidence in these cases are
hereby ordered to be transmitted to the Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB).
SO
ORDERED.
Due to
the penalty imposed, which is Life Imprisonment, the case was elevated to this
Court on appeal. However, per Resolution[24]
of this Court dated March 28, 2005, the case was transferred to the CA in
conformity with the Decision of this Court dated July 7, 2004 in People v.
Mateo,[25]
modifying the pertinent provisions of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure, particularly Sections 3 and 10 of Rule 122, Section 13 of Rule 124, Section 3 of Rule 125, and any
other rule insofar as it provides for direct appeals from the RTC to this Court
in cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment; as well as the resolution of this Court en banc, dated
September 19, 1995, on Internal Rules of the Supreme Court, in cases similarly
involving the death penalty, pursuant to this Court's power to promulgate rules
of procedure in all courts under Article VIII, Section 5 of the Constitution,
and allowing an intermediate review by the CA before such cases are elevated to
this Court.
The CA,
in its Decision dated July 19, 2006, affirmed the conviction of
accused-appellant. The dispositive
portion reads as follows:
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit,
and the assailed decision is AFFIRMED and UPHELD in toto.
SO
ORDERED.
Accused-appellant, in his
Brief dated September 20, 2004, ascribes the following errors, to wit:
I
THE COURT A-QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE
GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT FOR THE CRIME CHARGED HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT.
II
THE COURT A-QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES
AND SEIZURES.
Accused-appellant
claims that he was not given the opportunity to know the reason for his arrest,
as he was immediately handcuffed by the arresting officers, making it appear
that he was caught in flagrante selling shabu, which is in contravention of his rights against unreasonable
searches and seizures as embodied under the 1987 Philippine Constitution. He further argues that the presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail over the
constitutionally protected rights of an individual.
The Office of
the Solicitor General (OSG), in its Brief, states the argument that:
THE PROSECUTION SATISFACTORILY PROVED THE GUILT OF
APPELLANT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
The OSG
posits that the crime of drug pushing merely requires the consummation of the
sale, whereby the pusher hands over the drugs to the buyer in exchange for
money, which the prosecution is able to prove beyond reasonable doubt. It
further contends that, accused-appellant's denial cannot prevail over his
positive identification as a peddler of shabu. As to the claim of accused-appellant that his
arrest and the search made by the police officers were illegal, the OSG points
out that during his testimony, when asked if he ever protested his arrest during
the time of the arrest itself, accused-appellant admitted that he merely
informed the prosecutor about it, but did not file any written complaint or
protest against the arresting officers.
The appeal is devoid of
any merit.
The elements necessary for the
prosecution of the illegal sale of drugs are: (1) the identities of the buyer
and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the
thing sold and the payment therefor. What
is material to the prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the
proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the
presentation in court of evidence of corpus
delicti.[26]
All of the above elements
have been proven to be present in this case.
The identities of the buyer and the seller, as well as the object and
the consideration, were properly and sufficiently proven by the prosecution. As
testified to by SPO4 Taruc regarding the buy-bust operation conducted:
Q: Mr. Witness, you stated that you are presently assigned at the San Jose de Monte Police Station, will you please tell before this Honorable Court what particular unit or division were you assigned?
A: At DEU, sir.
Q: Being assigned at the DEU of the San Jose del Monte Police Station, will you please tell before this Honorable Court your specific duties as such?
A: I am the chief of that section, sir.
Q: Being the chief of the said section of the DEU, will you please tell before this Honorable Court your duties as chief of the office?
A: To arrest drug pushers and drug users, sir.
Q: Do you rcall if you have reported for duty on August 17, 2002?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: At what time did you report for duty on said date?
A: At about 9:00 o'clock in the morning, sir.
Q: When you reported for duty, do you recall if there was unusual incident that transpired thereat?
A: When we were instructed to proceed to Gumaok East to conduct buy-bust operation, sir.
Q: Who instructed you to conduct buy-bust operation at Gumaok East, San Jose del Monte City, Bulacan?
A: Our chief of police, sir.
Q: And who is your chief of police Mr. Witness, at that time?
A: P/Sr. Supt. Romeo R. Palisoc, sir.
Q: Who are your companions who were directed by P/Sr. Supt. Palisoc to conduct buy-bust operation at Gumaok East, City of San Jose del Monte?
A: SPO2 Mario Llarinas, PO3 Nasser Saiyadi and the other members of our station, sir.
Q: What did you prepare if any prior to the actual buy-bust operation that took place at Gumaok East, San Jose del Monte City, Bulacan?
A: The vehicle and our buy-bust money, sir.
Q: How much buy-bust money did you prepare?
A: Two hundred pesos (P200.00),
sir.
Q: Will you please tell
this Honorable Court your participation in the actual buy-bust operation?
A: As Poseur buyer, sir.
Q: According to you you
were directed by your chief of office to conduct buy-bust operation in Gumaok,
and who is the person or the subject of the buy-bust to be conducted by you?
A: Fernando
Villamin alias Andoy, sir.
Q: Mr. Witness, I am showing to you two (2) one hundred peso bills
which according to you utilized as the buy-bust money, will you please go over
the same and tell before this Honorable Court what relation if any these two
(2) one hundred peso bills?
A: This is it, sir.
Q: Why do you say that
these are the same two (2) one hundred peso bills, what were your identifying
mark if any?
A: My initial, sir.
Q: Will you please point your initial which according to you you put there?
A: Here, sir. (witness pointed to the initial AT written on the collar of Manuel Roxas already marked as Exhibits A-1 and B-1).[27]
From the
above testimony, it is clear that the first element has been complied with: the
poseur-buyer positively identified the seller of shabu and the money used for the sale of the same. The second and crucial element, which is the
proof that a transaction indeed transpired between the buyer and the seller,
was categorically testified to by SPO4 Taruc, as follows:
Q: At what time did you actually proceed to Gumaok, San Jose del Monte City, Bulacan to conduct buy-bust operation against Fernando Villamin?
A: We arrived there at around 11:00 a. m., sir.
Q: When you reached the place at 11:00 o'clock in the morning, what transpired next if any?
A: When we arrived there, we saw Andoy and he met us and announced “meron na, meron na,” sir.
Q: Mr. Witness let us clarify this matter, how many of you proceeded to the place?
A: Many, sir.
Q: According to you you acted as the poseur buyer, who acted as the back up?
A: Llarinas, Saiyadi and other DEU members, sir.
Q: Who are the DEU members?
A: Jerson Bausa, Eduardo Ocampo, Glendo Villamor and many others, sir.
Q: When you reached the place, being the poseur buyer what did you do?
A: We bought already, sir.
Q: How about your other companions?
A: They were from us, sir.
Q From where you are, how far were back up positioned themselves, if you know?
A: They were on the opposite side of the street and they were hidden, sir.
Q: According to you proceeded to the place, will you please describe the place?
A: It is a small house made of wood and hollow blocks, sir.
Q: Who owns the place?
A: Fernando Villamin, sir.
Q: What happened next after you proceeded to the house of Fernando Vilamin?
A: I already bought shabu from him, sir.
Q: Where did the transaction take place?
A: Near his house, sir.
Q: In front of the house?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Were you alone in buying the shabu?
A: I was with our civilian asset, sir.
Q So it is now very clear that you being the poseur buyer as well as your asset together with Fernando Villamin were alone in the place?
A Yes, sir.
Q: What happened next thereafter?
A: When I said I am going to buy shabu, he readily gave me, sir.
Q: What happened next thereafter?
A: When I said I am going to buy shabu, he readily gave me, sir.
Q: What happened next thereafter?
A: He turned his back and went inside and get the shabu and came back carrying the shabu already, sir.
Q: Mr. Witness let us be specific, you stated he went inside, from where did he went inside?
A: Inside his house, sir.
x x x
Q: What happened next thereafter after Villamin went inside his house?
A: When Villamin entered his house and after we saw the persons using shabu, he went outside and handed the shabu to me, sir.
Q: How about the two hundred (P200.00)?
A: I handed to him, sir.
Q: Which came first, the
handing of shabu or the handing of the two hundred (P200.00)?
A: I first handed him the money and he handed to me the shabu, sir.
Q: How many pieces of shabu?
A: Only one (1), sir.
Q: I am showing to you one small plastic sachet and inside is another plastic sachet which states BB OPN and Exhibit A, will you please go over the same and tell before this Honorable Court what relation if any that one small plastic sachet?
A: This is what he handed me, sir. (witness referring to one small plastic sachet placed inside a bigger sachet with marking BB OPN)
x x x
Q: After the accused handed to you the shabu which is the subject of the buy-bust, what happened next if any?
A: I held him by his hand and announced to him that I am arresting him for selling shabu, sir.[28]
As
distinctly narrated above by the witness, a transaction
indeed took place, which led to the arrest of the accused-appellant in flagrante. The other witnesses, members of the buy-bust
operation team, corroborated the above testimony of SPO4 Taruc.
Prosecutions
involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police
officers who conducted the buy-bust operation.[29] It is a fundamental rule that findings of
the trial courts, which are factual in nature and which 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 is 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. The rule
finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by
the Court of Appeals.[30]
Accused-appellant,
during his testimony and in his Appellant's Brief, merely denied the charge
against him. According to him, he was
just having breakfast when the members of the buy-bust team suddenly barged
inside the house and arrested him.
Against the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses,
appellant’s plain denial of the offenses charged, unsubstantiated by any
credible and convincing evidence, must simply fail.[31]
Frame-up, like alibi, is generally viewed with caution by this Court, because
it is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove. Moreover, it is a common and standard line of
defense in prosecutions of violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act.[32]
For this claim to prosper, the defense must adduce clear and convincing
evidence to overcome the presumption that government officials have performed
their duties in a regular and proper manner.[33] Unfortunately,
the accused-appellant miserably failed to present any evidence that the members
of the buy-bust operation team did not properly perform their duty, or that the
entire operation was coupled with any improper motive.
As an added
argument, the accused-appellant questions the legality of his arrest. He claims that he was not given the opportunity
to know the reason for his arrest, and that the arresting officers were not
armed with any warrant for arrest. This
Court, however, finds the said argument to be preposterous. It must be remembered that the
accused-appellant was the subject of a buy-bust operation, the main goal of
which was to catch him in flagrante selling shabu, and from the evidence for the prosecution, he was arrested
while committing a crime -- peddling of illegal drugs, a circumstance where
warrantless arrest is justified under Rule 113, Section 5(a) of the Rules of Court, which states that:
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.
x x x
A
buy-bust operation is a form of
entrapment which in recent years has been accepted as a valid and effective
mode of apprehending drug pushers. In a
buy-bust operation, the idea to commit a crime originates from the offender,
without anybody inducing or prodding him to commit the offense.[34]
If carried out with due regard for constitutional and legal safeguards, a
buy-bust operation deserves judicial sanction.[35] Thus,
from the very nature of a buy-bust operation, the absence of a warrant does not
make the arrest illegal.
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision dated July 19, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G. R. CR. - H. C. No. 00967, affirming the Decision dated May 7, 2003 of the
Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 20 in Criminal Case No.
2332-M-2002, finding accused-appellant, Fernando Villamin y San Jose, guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act
(R.A.) 9165 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
RENATO
C. CORONA
Associate Justice Chairperson |
|
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
|
JOSE
CATRAL MENDOZA Associate Justice |
|
ATTESTATION
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.
RENATO C.
CORONA
Associate
Justice
Third
Division, Chairperson
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro, with Associate Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Aurora Santiago-Lagman, concurring, rollo, pp. 3-24.
[2] Penned by Judge Oscar M. Herrera, Jr., records, pp. 135-149.
[3] Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride
[4] TSN, October 14, 2002, p. 20.
[5] TSN, October 30, 2002, p. 5.
[6] Id.
[7] TSN, October 9, 2002, p. 5; id. at 4, p. 8; id. at 5, p. 9.
[8] Id. at 4, p.8; id. at 5, p. 7; id. at 7, pp. 6 and 13.
[9] Exhibits “A” and “B,” id. at 7, p. 5; id. at 4, p. 8.
[10] Supra note 4, p. 9.
[11] Id. at 12-13.
[12] Id. at 13-14 and 18; supra note 5, at 7; and supra note 7, at 7.
[13] Supra note 7, at 7-9.
[14] Id. at 11-12; id. at 10, p.15.
[15] Supra note 10, at 19.
[16] Also known as shabu.
[17] Initial Laboratory Report No. D-461-02, CA records, p. 11.
[18] Supra note 7, at 13-14.
[19] Supra note 4, at 6-28.
[20] Id. at 18.
[21] Supra note 5, at 4-15.
[22] TSN, January 20, 2003, pp. 2-7.
[23] TSN, February 17, 2003, pp. 3-7.
[24] Rollo, p. 115.
[25] G. R. Nos. 147678-87,433 SCRA 640.
[26] People v. Saidamen Macatingag, G.R. No. 181037, January 19 2009, citing People of the Philippines v. Del Monte,
G.R. No. 179940, April 23, 2008, 552 SCRA 627.
[27] Supra note 4, at 6-9.
[28] Supra note 4, at 9-13.
[29] People v. Saidamen Macatingag, supra,
citing People v. Hajili, 447 Phil.
283, 295-296 (2003).
[30] People v. Saidamen Macatingag supra, citing People v. Bayani, G.R. No. 179150, June 17,
2008, 554 SCRA 741.
[31] People
v. del Monte, G. R. No. 179940, April
23, 2008, 552 SCRA 627, citing People v.
Sy, G.R. No. 171397, 27 September 2006, 503 SCRA 772, 783.
[32] People
v. del Monte, id., citing People v. Eugenio,
G.R. No. 146805, 16 January 2003, 395 SCRA 317, 323.
[33] People
v. del Monte, id., citing People v. Zheng
Bai Hui, 393 Phil. 68, 138 (2000).
[34] People v. Agulay, G..R. No. 181747, September 26, 2008, 566 SCRA 571, citing People v. Valencia, 439 Phil. 561, 574 (2002).
[35] People v. Agulay, id.,citing People v. Abbu, 317 Phil. 518, 525 (1995).