Republic of the
Supreme Court
FIRST
DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus – SONNY Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No.
174097 Present: Chairperson, VELASCO, JR., LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, PEREZ, JJ. Promulgated: July
21, 2010 |
x - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
LEONARD0-DE CASTRO, J.:
For
review is the Decision[1]
dated May 25, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00553 which
affirmed the Decision[2]
dated October 5, 2004 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 157, Pasig
City, in Criminal Case Nos. 11595-96-D, finding accused-appellant Sonny Padua y
Reyes guilty of illegal sale and possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride, popularly known as shabu, under Sections 5 and 11, Article
II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002.
The
facts gathered from the records are as follows:
Two
separate informations dated August 19, 2002 were filed before the RTC against
appellant for illegal sale and possession of shabu under Sections 5[3]
and 11,[4]
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The
accusatory portion of the informations read:
Criminal Case No.
11595-D
The undersigned
Assistant Provincial Prosecutor accuses SONNY PADUA y REYES of the crime of
violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act 9165, committed as follows:
That, on or about the 18th
day of August 2002, in the Municipality of Taguig, Metro Manila, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
without being authorized by law did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and
knowingly sell, deliver and give away to another one (1) heat sealed
transparent plastic sachet containing 0.20 gram of white crystalline substance,
which substance was found positive to the test for “shabu”, which is a
dangerous drug, in consideration of the amount of P200.00 in violation
of the above-cited law.[5]
Criminal Case No.
11596-D
The undersigned
Assistant Provincial Prosecutor accuses SONNY PADUA y REYES of the crime of
violation of Section 11, 2nd Par., No. 3, Article II of Republic Act
9165, committed as follows:
That, on or about the 18th
day of August 2002 in the Municipality of Taguig, Metro Manila, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
without being authorized by law did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and
knowingly have in his possession, custody and control four (4) heat sealed
transparent plastic sachets, each sachet containing 0.20 gram, 0.10 gram, 0.20
gram and 0.20 gram, respectively, or in the aggregate total weight of 0.70
gram, of white crystalline substance, which substance were found positive to
the test for “shabu,” which is a dangerous drug, in violation of the
above-cited law.[6]
Subsequently,
these cases were consolidated. When
arraigned on September 18, 2002, appellant, assisted by counsel de oficio, pleaded “Not guilty” to each
of the charges.[7]
During
the pre-trial conference, the public prosecutor marked their evidence but the
defense did not mark any evidence. The
prosecution decided to present four witnesses, namely: Senior Police Officer
(SPO) 2 Nilo Banzuela, Police Officer (PO) 3 Felix Mayuga, PO3 Cirilo Zamora
and PO2 Roberto Jovenir. The parties
dispensed with the testimony of Forensic Chemist Maria Ana Rivera-Dagasdas on
the stipulation that she received the request for laboratory examination and
the specimen allegedly confiscated from the accused on August 18, 2002 and upon
her examination, the specimen proved positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride
as appearing in Chemistry Report No. D-1237-02.
The defense agreed to present three witnesses, the accused, Alicia Padua
and Christopher Griego.[8]
Trial
on the merits thereafter followed.
Evidence
for the prosecution adduced before the RTC consisted of the sole testimony of
witness PO2 Dante Aguilar of the District Drug Enforcement Unit (DDEU),
Southern Police District (SPD), P200.00 marked money.[10]
On the
same day, at around 10:30 a.m., the group proceeded to the residence of
accused-appellant at P200.00 marked money to the accused-appellant,
who folded and placed it on his left pocket.
Accused-appellant then took something from his right pocket and handed
an aluminum sachet to PO2 Aguilar.
Subsequently, PO2 Aguilar removed his cap, the pre-arranged signal to
the rest of the buy-bust team that he had already bought the shabu.
When PO1 Esparagoza
arrived, PO2 Aguilar frisked and arrested the accused-appellant. He recovered the buy-bust money in the left
pocket and four sachets in the right pocket of the accused-appellant. He informed accused-appellant of his right to
remain silent, and of the fact that he would be charged with violation of
Republic Act No. 9165. They brought him
to the police station. Later, PO2
Aguilar turned over the seized drugs to the investigator, who thereafter
brought the evidence to the SPD Crime Laboratory Office,
For
failure of PO3 Cirilo Zamora to appear on the April 3, 2003 hearing,[11]
PO1 Michael Esparagoza to appear on the July 24, 2003 hearing,[12]
and PO2 Robert Jovenir to appear at the November 12, 2003 hearing,[13]
despite notices, their testimonies were deemed waived.
The
prosecution also adduced documentary and object evidence to buttress the
testimony of its witness, to wit: (1) joint affidavit of the arresting officers
signed by SPO2 Nilo Banzuela, PO3 Cirilo Zamora, PO2 Dante Aguilar, PO3 Felix
Mayuga, PO2 Roberto Jovenir and PO1 Michael Esparagoza;[14]
(2) request for laboratory examination dated August 18, 2002;[15]
(3) Physical Science Report No. D-1237-02 dated August 18, 2002, signed by
Forensic Chemist Maria Ana Rivera-Dagasdas;[16]
(4) one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.20 gram of shabu;
(5) four heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets each containing 0.20 gram,
0.10 gram, 0.20 gram and 0.20 gram respectively, of shabu; and (6)
photocopy of two one-hundred-peso bills with serial numbers FW840532 and
YR684136.[17]
The defense, on the other hand,
had an entirely different version of what transpired that morning. It presented two witnesses: accused-appellant
Sonny Padua and Miranda Estanislao. The
testimony of Alice Padua, the wife of the accused was dispensed with, on the
stipulation that if presented she will just corroborate the testimony of the
accused.
Accused-appellant testified that there was no
buy-bust operation on August 18, 2002.
On direct examination, accused-appellant asserted that at around 8:00 to
9:00 o’clock in the morning of August 18, 2002, he was awakened by the
operatives who went to his house located at No. 216, Mozo Street, Purok 2,
Barangay Napindan, Taguig City. When he
opened his eyes, a gun was poked at him.
He was handcuffed by the police officers and was brought to DDEU at P120,000.00
otherwise a case will be filed against him.
The
following day, accused-appellant was allegedly brought to the Capitol Compound
for inquest and was thereafter brought to the Taguig Municipal Jail. He was not aware of any violation he
committed. It was only during the
inquest proceedings in court that accused-appellant learned of the charges
filed against him.
The
defense also offered the testimony of Miranda Estanislao, cousin of the wife of
accused-appellant. Per her statement, on
August 18, 2002 in front of the house of her mother and beside the house of
accused-appellant located at
After trial, the court a
quo found accused-appellant guilty as charged. The dispositive portion of the trial court’s
decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the court
finds accused SONNY PADUA Y REYES guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act
9165, and hereby sentences him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of
P500,000.00.
The
Court also finds accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section
11, Article II of the same law and sentences him to suffer a prison term
ranging from TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY, AS MINIMUM, to TWENTY (20)
YEARS, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P300.000.00
The
confiscated evidence are forfeited in favor of the Government and the Branch
Clerk of Court is directed to cause their immediate transmittal to the
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for immediate disposal in accordance
with law.[19]
On May
25, 2006, the Court of Appeals affirmed the findings and conclusion of the
RTC. The appellate court ruled that the
buy-bust operation conducted by the police officers was proper and there was no
irregularity in the conduct of the same.
Accused-appellant was caught in flagrante delicto, thus, his arrest was lawful and the sachets of shabu confiscated from him were admissible
in evidence, being the fruits of the crime.
The Court of Appeals also ruled that there was no evidence of any
improper motive on the part of prosecution witness PO2 Aguilar, who was a
member of the team who conducted the buy-bust operation.
The records of this case were thereby forwarded by the
Court of Appeals to this Court pursuant to its Resolution dated July 20, 2006,
giving due course to accused-appellant’s Notice of Appeal.
In our
Resolution[20] dated
October 16, 2006, the parties were notified that they may file their respective
supplemental briefs, if they so desired, within 30 days from notice.
People[21]
opted not to file a supplemental brief on the ground that it had exhaustively
argued all the relevant issues in its brief, and the filing of a supplemental
brief would only entail a repetition of the arguments already discussed
therein. Accused-appellant submitted his
supplemental brief on December 20, 2006.
In his
Supplemental Brief,[22]
accused-appellant assigned the following errors:
I.
THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT WAS NOT
PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT FOR FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO ESTABLISH THE
CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF THE SPECIMEN.
II.
THE APPELLATE COURT, WITH DUE RESPECT, GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PRESENT THE ALLEGED INFORMANT.
Accused-appellant
asserts that the police officers failed to account for the chain of custody of
the seized items alleged to be shabu. He questions the non-presentation as witness
of the alleged investigator, the officer on duty who received the specimen
together with the request for laboratory examination from PO2 Aguilar. He maintains that the specimen, which PO2
Aguilar turned over to Forensic Chemist Rivera-Dagasdas, may no longer be the
same specimen taken from him by PO2 Aguilar.
Contrary
to accused-appellant’s claim, there is no broken chain in the custody of the
seized items, found to be shabu, from
the time PO2 Aguilar got the shabu,
to the time it was turned over to the investigating officer, and up to the time
it was brought to the forensic chemist at the PNP Crime Laboratory for
laboratory examination.
The
procedure for the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized and/or surrendered
dangerous drugs, among others, is provided under paragraph 1, Section 21,
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, as follows:
(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.
Section
21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No.
9165, which implements said provision, stipulates:
(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: x
x x Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under
justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not
render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.
Under
the same proviso, non-compliance with the
stipulated procedure, under justifiable grounds, shall not render void and
invalid such seizures of and custody over said items, for as long as the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by
the apprehending officers.
Clearly,
the purpose of the procedure outlined in the implementing rules is centered on
the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. The testimony of PO2 Aguilar outlines the
chain of custody of the confiscated items, i.e.,
sachets of shabu:
Q What else did you do when you arrested Sonny Padua?
A I frisked him.
Q When you say frisk him, who is that?
A Sonny
Q What else did you do when you arrested Sonny Padua?
A After I arrested him I recovered from him the buy-bust money
in his left pocket and the 4 sachets of shabu in his right pocket.
Q What else did you do?
A And I apprised him of his violation of 9165.
Q If this person is shown to you, will you be able to
recognize him?
A Yes, sir.
Q Is he here in this court-room today?
A Yes, sir.
Q Will you please stand up and point to him?
A Witness is pointing to a man wearing a yello (sic) t-shirt
who when asked he replied he is Sonny Padua.
Q I am showing to you a brown envelope inside the same brown
envelope is a plastic sachet of shabu, will you please go over the same
and tell us if this is the plastic sachet which you bought from the accused and
also you confiscated from him other plastic sachets?
A This is the shabu I bought [f]rom accused with
marking DA-1-180802.
Q What about the remaining 4?
A These are the 4 sachets I recovered in his right pocket.
PROS. TOLENTINO:
Mark as exh. D-2 to D-5.
Q When you were reading the rights and informing the charges
of accused and confiscating from him the shabu including the money,
where was your immediate superior officer?
A Beside me.
Q What was he doing at the time?
A He is assisting me.
PROS. TOLENTINO:
We are adapting the same marking during the
pre-trial the brown envelope exh. D, the marking identified by the police
officer, the witness in this case and after arresting and reading and informing
the accused of his violation under the law, where did you bring him?
A We brought him to our office.
Q By the way, why are you sure when you identified all the shabu
the same plastic sachet that you bought from the accused, why do you say they
are the same?
A Because I put marking.
Q Where?
A At the area.
Q And the other shabu that were confiscated from him,
why do you say these were the plastic sachets of shabu confiscated from
the accused?
A The same because I put markings at the area.
Q When you say area?
A The place where I arrested the accused.
Q And bringing him to the police station, what happened Mr.
witness?
A Upon arrival at the station I turned him to our
investigator.
Q What about the specimen you confiscated from him?
A I turned them over to our investigator for examination.[23]
The
fact that the persons who had possession or custody of the subject drugs, such
as Forensic Chemist Rivera-Dagasdas and the alleged investigator, were not
presented as witnesses to corroborate SPO2 Aguilar’s testimony is of no
moment. The non-presentation as
witnesses of other persons such as the investigator and the forensic chemist,
is not a crucial point against the prosecution.
The matter of presentation of witnesses by the prosecution is not for
the court to decide. The prosecution has
the discretion as to how to present its case and it has the right to choose
whom it wishes to present as witnesses.[24]
As may be noted, the prosecution dispensed
with the testimony of Forensic Chemist Rivera-Dagasdas because the defense had
already agreed during the pre-trial in the substance of her testimony to be
given during trial, to wit:
To expedite the
proceeding, the parties dispensed with the testimony of Forensic Chemist Maria
Ana Rivera-Dagasdas, who appeared today, on stipulation that she received the
Request for Laboratory Examination dated August 18, 2002 and the specimen
allegedly confiscated from the accused, that upon her examination the specimen
proved positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, as
appearing in the Chemistry Report No. D-1237-02.[25]
Anent
the failure of the prosecution to present the testimony of the informant, it is
well-settled that the testimony of an informant in drug-pushing cases is not
essential for conviction and may be dispensed if the poseur-buyer testified on
the same.[26] Informants are almost always never presented
in court because of the need to preserve their invaluable service to the
police.[27]
Further,
not all people who came into contact with the seized drugs are required to
testify in court. There is nothing in
Republic Act No. 9165 or in any rule implementing the same that imposes such
requirement. As long as the chain of
custody of the seized drug was clearly established not to have been broken and
that the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized, it is
not indispensable that each and every person who came into possession of the
drugs should take the witness stand.[28] In People v. Zeng Hua Dian,[29]
we ruled:
After a thorough review
of the records of this case, we find that the chain of custody of the seized
substance was not broken and that the prosecution did not fail to identify
properly the drugs seized in this case. The non-presentation as witnesses of
other persons such as SPO1 Grafia, the evidence custodian, and PO3 Alamia, the
officer on duty, is not a crucial point against the prosecution. The matter of
presentation of witnesses by the prosecution is not for the court to decide.
The prosecution has the discretion as to how to present its case and it has the
right to choose whom it wishes to present as witnesses.
What
determines if there was, indeed, a sale of dangerous drugs in a buy-bust
operation is proof of the concurrence of all the elements of the offense, to
wit: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration;
and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor, which the
prosecution has satisfactorily established.
The prosecution satisfactorily proved the illegal sale of dangerous
drugs and presented in court the evidence of corpus delicti.[30]
In the
instant case, all the elements of the crime have been sufficiently established
by the prosecution. The witness for the
prosecution was able to prove that the buy-bust operation indeed took place,
and the shabu subject of the sale was
brought to and duly identified in court.
The poseur-buyer (PO2 Aguilar) positively identified accused-appellant
as the one who had sold to him one heat-sealed, transparent plastic sachet
containing twenty decigrams (0.20 gram) of shabu. After accused-appellant received the marked
money and handed to PO2 Aguilar one plastic sachet of shabu, the latter called his team mates and right away frisked the
accused-appellant. From the body search,
PO2 Aguilar recovered from the possession of accused-appellant, specifically
from the latter’s right pocket, another four sachets of shabu.
On the
other hand, for an accused to be convicted of illegal possession of prohibited
or regulated drugs, the following elements must concur: (1) the accused is in
possession of an item or object which 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.[31]
With respect to the charge of illegal possession of
dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, all of
these elements were present and duly proven in Criminal Case No. 11596-D. These are: (1) accused-appellant was found to
be in possession of .70 gram of shabu,
a dangerous drug; (2) the identity of accused-appellant as the person found in
possession of the dangerous drug was established; and (3) accused-appellant,
the person found to be in possession, was not authorized to possess the
dangerous drug. The prosecution has established
that the arresting officers were able to retrieve four more plastic sachets of shabu in accused-appellant’s possession
when he was directed to empty his pockets upon being arrested in flagrante delicto in the buy-bust
operation.
PO2
Aguilar straightforwardly narrated the circumstances leading to the
consummation of the sale of illegal drugs, the possession of four plastic
sachets of shabu and the arrest of accused-appellant. Credence was properly accorded to the
testimony of prosecution witness PO2 Aguilar who is a law enforcer. The testimony of the police officers carried
with it the presumption of regularity in the performance of official
functions. Law enforcers are presumed to
have performed their duties regularly in the absence of evidence to the
contrary. When police officers have no
motive for testifying falsely against the accused, courts are inclined to
uphold the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties[32]
and no evidence whatsoever was presented that would suggest any improper motive
on the part of the police enforcers.
This Court accords great respect to and treats with finality the
findings of the trial court on the matter of credibility of witnesses, absent
any palpable error or arbitrariness in its findings.
Accused-appellant also contends that the prosecution failed to prove that he received the money as payment for the sale of illegal drugs, by its failure to prove that he was positive for ultraviolet fluorescent powder. The accused-appellant fails to persuade us. Since the prosecution has discharged its onus of proving the accusation, as in fact it presented the prohibited drug and identified accused-appellant as the offender, it is immaterial that prosecution present report that accused-appellant was indeed positive for ultraviolet fluorescent powder.
In a
last-ditch but futile attempt to evade culpability, the accused-appellant tried
to argue on his behalf that no surveillance was conducted before the buy-bust
operation.
A prior
surveillance is not a prerequisite for the validity of an entrapment or
buy-bust operation, the conduct of which has no rigid or textbook method. Flexibility is a trait of good police
work. However the police carry out its
entrapment operations, for as long as the rights of the accused have not been
violated in the process, the courts will not pass on the wisdom thereof.[33] The police officers may decide that time is
of the essence and dispense with the need for prior surveillance.[34]
Since
accused-appellant’s violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act
No. 9165 were duly established by the prosecution’s evidence, we shall now
ascertain the penalties imposable on him.
Under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act
No. 9165, the unauthorized sale of shabu, regardless of its quantity and
purity, carries with it the penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine
ranging from Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten Million
Pesos (P10,000,000.00).
Pursuant,
however, to the enactment of Republic Act No. 9346, entitled “An Act
Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the P500,000.00 on appellant in
Criminal Case No. 11595-D.
Section
11(3), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 provides that illegal possession of
less than five grams of shabu is
penalized with imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one day to twenty (20)
years, plus a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00)
to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00).
Accused-appellant
was charged with and found to be guilty of illegal possession of 0.70 gram of shabu in Criminal Case No. 11596-D. Hence, the RTC and the Court of Appeals aptly
sentenced appellant to imprisonment of 12 years and one day, as minimum, to 20
years, as maximum, and fined him P300,000.00, since said penalties are
within the range of penalties prescribed by the aforequoted provision.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated May
25, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00553 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
Chief Justice
Chairperson
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice
|
MARIANO C. Associate Justice
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JOSE P. PEREZAssociate Justice |
|
[1] Penned
by Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino with Associate Justices Fernanda
Lampas-Peralta and Vicente S.E. Veloso, concurring; rollo, pp. 2-15.
[2] Penned
by Judge Esperanza Fabon-Victorino; CA rollo, pp. 13-19.
[3] SEC.
5. P500,000.00)
to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person,
who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense,
deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any
dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the
quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such
transactions.
The
penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to
twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00)
to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any
person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense,
deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any
controlled precursor and essential chemical, or shall act as a broker in such
transactions.
[4] Section
11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. -
The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred
thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00)
shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess
any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of
purity thereof:
x
x x x
(5) 50 grams or more of methamphetamine
hydrochloride or “shabu”;
x
x x x
Otherwise,
if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties
shall be graduated as follows:
x
x x x
(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and
one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand
pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00),
if
the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of
opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or
marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or “shabu,”
or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or “ecstasy,” PMA,
TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their
derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed
is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or less than three hundred (300) grams
of marijuana.
[5] CA
rollo, p. 6.
[6]
[7] Certificate
of Arraignment, records, p. 15.
[8] Records,
p. 25.
[9] TSN,
January 30, 2003, p. 4.
[10] The
two one-hundred-peso bills were marked with initials MF. (Records, pp. 9 and
99.)
[11] Records,
p. 49.
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
TSN,
August 19, 2004, pp. 3-4.
[19] CA rollo, p. 19.
[20] Rollo, p. 18.
[21] Id. at 39-40.
[22]
[23] TSN,
January 30, 2003, pp. 9-11; records, pp. 120-122.
[24] People
v. Zeng Hua Dian, G.R. No. 145348, June 14, 2004, 432 SCRA 25-32.
[25] Records,
p. 25.
[26] People v. Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, July
28, 2008, 560 SCRA 430, 445; People
v.
[27] People
v. Domingcil, 464 Phil. 342, 358 (2004).
[28] People v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 184804,
June 18, 2009, 589 SCRA 625, 645-646.
[29] Supra
note 24 at 32.
[30] People v. Padasin, 445 Phil. 448, 462
(2003).
[31]
People v. Lagata, 452 Phil. 846, 853 (2003).
[32] People
v. Khor, 366 Phil. 762, 793 (1999).
[33] People
v. Cadley, 469 Phil. 515, 525 (2004).
[34] People
v. Lacbanes, 336 Phil. 933, 941 (1997).