Republic of the
SUPREME COURT
THIRD DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, -
versus - VICTORIO PAGKALINAWAN, Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 184805 Present: VELASCO,
JR., NACHURA,
PERALTA,
and MENDOZA,
JJ. Promulgated: March
3, 2010 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
VELASCO, JR., J.:
This is an appeal from the May 9, 2008 Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 02648 entitled People of the Philippines v. Victorio Pagkalinawan, which affirmed
the January 16, 2007 Joint Decision[2] in
Criminal Case Nos. 13624-D and 13625-D of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 267 in Pasig City. The RTC found accused-appellant Victorio[3]
Pagkalinawan guilty of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic
Act No. (RA) 9165 or the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The charges against appellant stemmed from the following Informations:
Criminal Case No. 13624-D
(Violation of Sec. 5, paragraph 1 [Sale],
Art. II of RA 9165)
That, on or about the 20th day of July 2004, 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 0.28 gram of white crystalline substance contained in one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet, which was found positive to the test for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, also known as shabu, a dangerous drug, in consideration of the amount of Php500.00, and violation of the above-cited law.
Contrary to law.[4]
Criminal Case No. 13625-D
(Violation of Sec. 11, par. 2 [Possession],
Art. II of RA 9165)
That, on or about the 20th day of July 2004, 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 to possess any dangerous drug, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly possess 0.13 gram and 0.08 gram, respectively, or a total of 0.21 gram of white crystalline substance separately contained in two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets, which substance was found positive to the test for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, also known as shabu, a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.
Contrary to law.[5]
On August 9, 2004, appellant was arraigned. He pleaded “not guilty” to the charges
against him. After the pre-trial conference, trial on the merits ensued.
During the trial, the prosecution presented as its
witnesses Police Officer (PO1) Rey Memoracion and PO3 Arnulfo Vicuña, both
members of the Station Drug Enforcement Unit, Taguig Police Station, Taguig
City. On the other hand, the defense presented as its witnesses appellant Pagkalinawan,
Paula San Pedro, and May Pagkalinawan.
The Prosecution’s Version of Facts
On July 20, 2004, at around 11:00 p.m., a confidential informant arrived
at the office of the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs-Special Operations Task Force
(SAID-SOTF) of the Taguig City Police and reported the illegal activities of a certain
“Berto,” a resident of
The leader of the group, Police Senior Inspector Romeo Paat, immediately
formed a buy-bust team with PO1 Memoracion as the poseur-buyer and the rest of
the group as back-up. The buy-bust money
was then marked and recorded in the blotter. Afterwards, the team, along with the police
informant, proceeded to where Berto lives. Upon reaching the place, PO1 Memoracion and
the informant alighted from the service vehicle and walked towards Berto, who
was leaning against a wall, while the rest of the team positioned themselves in
strategic locations from where they could see clearly what was going on.
The informant introduced PO1 Memoracion to Berto as a taxi driver who
wanted to buy shabu. Berto immediately took the PhP 500 buy-bust
money from PO1 Memoracion and showed three (3) plastic sachets containing shabu in his palm, and asked the
poseur-buyer to pick one. Once PO1
Memoracion took hold of the shabu, he
took off his cap, which was the pre-arranged signal for the rest of the team to
close in and arrest Berto. Berto
suddenly became suspicious of PO3 Vicuña, who was coming up to them, so he
attempted to flee the scene. PO1
Memoracion was able to stop him and ordered him to empty his pockets. The other two (2) sachets of shabu were recovered from him and the
appropriate markings were made on them.
Berto was identified later on as appellant Pagkalinawan.
Afterwards, the team brought appellant to its headquarters in Taguig City
for investigation. After the police
investigator made the request for laboratory examination of the confiscated
transparent plastic sachets of suspected shabu,
PO1 Memoracion brought these to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory,
Southern Police District Crime Laboratory Office. Police Inspector (P/Insp.) May Andrea A.
Bonifacio, Forensic Chemical Officer, conducted a qualitative examination on
the specimens, which tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous
drug. She issued Physical Science Report
No. D-546-04S dated July 21, 2004, which showed the following results:
SPECIMEN SUBMITTED:
Three (3) heat-sealed transparent sachets each containing white crystalline substance with the following markings and net weights:
A (“SAID-SOTF” VSP) = 0.28 gram
B (“SAID-SOTF” VSP) = 0.13 gram
C (“SAID-SOTF” VSP) = 0.08 gram
x x x x
PURPOSE OF LABORATORY EXAMINATION:
To determine the presence of any dangerous drug. x x x
FINDINGS:
Qualitative examination conducted on the above-stated specimen gave POSITIVE result to the tests for the presence of Methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. x x x
CONCLUSION:
Specimen A to C contain Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.[6] x x x
Version of the Defense
Appellant, on the other hand, interposed the defense of denial.
Appellant recounted that, on July 20, 2004, he was watching television
inside their house at No. 10-D Ibayo, Tipaz,
May Pagkalinawan testified that, on July 20, 2004, she was resting inside
their house at No. 10-D Ibayo, Tipaz, Taguig City after selling her wares,
while appellant was watching television. Between 10:00 to 11:00 p.m., however, she went
to the house of her sister-in-law Zenaida for about ten minutes, but when she
returned home, she saw policemen apprehending appellant. She asked the policemen where they were
bringing appellant and they told her to follow them at the police station in the
Taguig City Hall. She also averred that
the policemen did not present any document giving them authority to search
their house and arrest appellant. She
further claimed that the police officers did not apprise appellant of his
constitutional rights during and after the arrest.
Defense witness Paula San Pedro, who claimed to be appellant’s granddaughter,
also corroborated the stories of both May Pagkalinawan and appellant. In her testimony, she stressed that her
grandfather was apprehended but not bodily frisked by the policemen inside
their house; hence, it was not possible for an illegal drug to be found in the
possession of appellant.
Ruling of the Trial Court
After trial, the RTC convicted appellant. The dispositive portion of its Joint Decision
reads:
WHEREFORE, in view
of the foregoing considerations, the Court finds accused VIRGILIO PAGKALINAWAN
y Silvestre alyas “Berto” in Criminal
Case No. 13624-D for Violation of Section 5, 1st paragraph,
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as “The Comprehensive
Drugs Act of 2002”, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused Virgilio
Pagkalinawan y Silvestre alyas “Berto” is hereby sentenced to suffer LIFE
IMPRISONMENT and ordered to pay a fine of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS
(PhP500,000.00).
Moreover, accused VIRGILIO PAGKALINAWAN y Silvestre alyas
“Berto” is also found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 13625-D for Violation
of Section 11, 2nd paragraph, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165,
otherwise known as “The Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002”. And since the
quantity of methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) found in the possession of the accused is only 0.21 gram,
accused Virgilio Pagkalinawan y Silvestre alyas “Berto” is hereby sentenced to
suffer imprisonment ranging from TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY as
minimum -to- FOURTEEN (14) YEARS and TWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS as maximum.
Accused Virgilio Pagkalinawan y Silvestre alyas “Berto” is further penalized to
pay a fine in the amount of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (PhP300,000.00).
Accordingly, the Jail Warden of the Taguig City Jail where accused Virgilio Pagkalinawan y Silvestre alyas “Berto” is presently detained is hereby ordered to forthwith commit the person of convicted Virgilio Pagkalinawan y Silvestre alyas “Berto” to the New Bilibid Prisons, Bureau of Corrections in Muntinlupa City, Metro Manila.
Upon the other hand, the shabu contained in three (3) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets with a total weight of 0.49 [gram] which are the subject matter of the above-captioned cases are hereby ordered to be immediately transmitted and/or submitted to the custody of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for its proper disposition.
Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.[7]
On appeal to the CA, appellant disputed the RTC’s
finding of his guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged. He argued that the presumption of innocence
should prevail over the principle of regularity of performance of the police
officers. Further, he contended that
what actually happened was an instigation and not a buy-bust operation. Lastly, he claimed that there was no
compliance with the law as to the proper requirements for a valid buy-bust
operation.
Ruling of the Appellate Court
On May 9, 2008, the CA affirmed the judgment of the RTC.
It ruled that the prosecution was able
to discharge the statutory burden of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It also dismissed the allegation of
instigation, saying that what happened was actually an entrapment, to wit:
x x x It should be noted that the accused-appellant was neither cajoled nor seduced into peddling drugs. In fact, when he was told that the poseur buyer wanted to score shabu, the accused-appellant had several sachets of shabu ready in his pocket. This means that even without the slightest prodding from the police officers, the accused-appellant already harbored the intent to commit the crime of drug pushing. The feigned offer to buy on the part of the poseur-buyer was merely a ploy to entrap a drug peddler who was about to actualize his felonious intent.[8]
The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in the
light of the foregoing discussion, the appealed Joint decision dated 16 January
2007 is perforce affirmed in toto
.
SO ORDERED.[9]
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal of the
decision of the CA.
Appellant
assigns the following errors:
I.
The trial court gravely erred in giving credence to the incredible testimony of the prosecution witnesses while totally disregarding the evidence adduced by the defense.
II.
The trial court gravely erred in finding that the guilt of the accused-appellant for the crime charged has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
We sustain appellant’s conviction.
Buy-Bust
Operation Is a Form of Entrapment
Appellant argues that the buy-bust operation conducted was invalid and
that what really happened was instigation, not entrapment. Such contention
lacks basis and is contrary to jurisprudence.
Instigation is the means by which the accused is lured into the
commission of the offense charged in order to prosecute him. On the other hand,
entrapment is the employment of such ways and means for the purpose of trapping
or capturing a lawbreaker.[10]
In People v. Lua Chu and Uy Se
Tieng, the Court laid down the distinction between entrapment and
instigation, 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 authorised 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.[11]
One form of entrapment is the buy-bust operation. It 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.[12]
In order to determine the validity of a buy-bust operation, this Court
has consistently applied the “objective” test. In People
v. Doria,[13] this 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. It
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.”[14]
In the instant case, the evidence clearly shows that the police officers
used entrapment, not instigation, to capture appellant in the act of selling a
dangerous drug. It was the confidential
informant who made initial contact with appellant when he introduced PO1 Memoracion
as a buyer for shabu. Appellant immediately took the PhP 500
buy-bust money from PO1 Memoracion and showed him three pieces of sachet
containing shabu and asked him to
pick one. Once PO1 Memoracion got the shabu,
he gave the pre-arranged signal and appellant was arrested. The facts categorically show a typical
buy-bust operation as a form of entrapment.
The police officers’ conduct was within the acceptable standards for the
fair and honorable administration of justice.
Moreover, contrary to appellant’s argument that the acts of the informant
and the poseur-buyer in pretending that they were in need of shabu instigated or induced him to
violate the Anti-Drugs Law, a police officer’s act of soliciting drugs from the
accused during a buy-bust operation, or what is known as a “decoy
solicitation,” is not prohibited by law and does not render the buy-bust
operation invalid.[15] This was clarified by the Court in People v. Sta Maria:
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 its commission. Especially is this true in that class of cases where the office is one habitually committed, and the solicitation merely furnishes evidence of a course of conduct.
As here, the solicitation of drugs from appellant by the informant utilized by the police merely furnishes evidence of a course of conduct. The police received an intelligence report that appellant has been habitually dealing in illegal drugs. They duly acted on it by utilizing an informant to effect a drug transaction with appellant. There was no showing that the informant induced the appellant to sell illegal drugs to him.[16]
It bears stressing that what is material to the
prosecution for illegal sale of drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale
actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti. In other words, the essential elements of the
crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs are: (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.[17]
All these elements were satisfactorily proved by the prosecution in the instant
case. Appellant sold and delivered the shabu for PhP 500 to PO1 Memoracion
posing as buyer; the said drug was seized and identified as a prohibited drug
and subsequently presented in evidence; there was actual exchange of the marked
money and contraband; and finally, appellant was fully aware that he was
selling and delivering a prohibited drug.
Likewise, the prosecution was also able to
prove with moral certainty the guilt of appellant for the crime of illegal
possession of dangerous drugs. It was able to prove the following elements: (1)
that the accused is in possession of the object identified as a prohibited or
regulatory drug; (2) that such possession is not authorized by law; and (3)
that the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.[18]
In the case at bar, appellant was caught in
actual possession of prohibited drugs without showing any proof that he was
duly authorized by law to possess them. Having
been caught in flagrante delicto,
there is, therefore, a prima facie
evidence of animus possidendi on
appellant’s part. [19]
As a matter of fact, the trial court, in
disposing of the case, said:
The
substance of the prosecution’s evidence is to the effect that accused Virgilio
Pagkalinawan y Silvestre alyas “Berto” was arrested by the police because of
the existence of shabu he sold to PO1
Rey B. Memoracion as well as the recovery of the buy-bust money from his
possession together with the other two (2) plastic sachets similarly containing
shabu.
To
accentuate, the prosecution witnesses in the person of PO1 B. Memoracion and
PO3 Arnulfo J. Vicuña positively identified accused Virgilio Pagkalinawan y
Silvestre alyas “Berto” as the person that they apprehended on July 20, 2004 at
Ibayo, Tipaz,
The
buy-bust money recovered by the arresting police officers from the possession
of the accused Virgilio Pagkalinawan y Silvestre alyas “Berto” as well as the shabu they were able to purchase from
the accused sufficiently constitute as the very corpus delicti of the crime of “Violation of Section 5, 1st
paragraph, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165”, and the two (2) plastic
sachets containing shabu that were
recovered from the same accused Pagkalinawan similarly constitute as the corpus delicti of the crime of
“Violation of Section 11, 2nd paragraph, No. 3, Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165”. As already established, corpus delicti has been defined x x x as the body or substance of
the crime and refers to the fact that a crime has actually been committed. As
applied to a particular offense, it means the actual commission by someone of
the particular crime.
The
testimony of PO1 Rey B. Memoracion that was corroborated by PO3 Arnulfo J.
Vicuña, who have not shown and displayed any ill motive to arrest the accused,
is sufficient enough to convict the accused of the crimes charged against him.
x x x As law enforcers, their narration of the incident is worthy of belief and
as such they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner,
in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. To stress x x x testimony of
arresting officers, with no motive or reason to falsely impute a serious charge
against the accused, is credible.[20]
This Court has consistently relied upon the
assessment of the trial court, which had the opportunity to observe the conduct
and demeanor of the witnesses during the trial. 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.[21]
In this case, appellant has not
sufficiently demonstrated the application of any of the aforementioned
exceptions.
Sec. 21 of
RA 9165 Provides for Exceptions
Additionally, appellant argues that the
prosecution failed to show compliance with Sec. 21 of RA 9165 and its
implementing rules regarding the custody and disposition of the evidence
against him. He contends that absolute
compliance is required and that anything short of that renders the evidence
against him inadmissible.
We are not persuaded.
Sec. 21 of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations of RA 9165 provides:
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.)
As can be gleaned from the language of Sec. 21
of the Implementing Rules, it is clear that the failure of the law enforcers to
comply strictly with it is not fatal. It
does not render appellant’s arrest illegal nor the evidence adduced against him
inadmissible.[22]
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.”[23]
Here, there was substantial compliance with the
law and the integrity of the drugs seized from appellant was preserved. The
chain of custody of the drugs subject matter of the case was shown not to have
been broken. The factual milieu of the
case reveals that after PO1 Memoracion seized and confiscated the dangerous
drugs, as well as the marked money, appellant was immediately arrested and
brought to the police station for investigation, where the sachets of suspected
shabu were marked appropriately. Immediately thereafter, the confiscated
substance, with a letter of request for examination, was submitted to the PNP
Crime Laboratory for laboratory examination to determine the presence of any
dangerous drug. Per Physical Science
Report No. D-546-04S
dated July 21, 2004, the specimen
submitted contained methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. The examination was conducted by one P/Insp.
May Andrea A. Bonifacio, a Forensic
Chemical Officer of the PNP Crime Laboratory. Therefore, it is evidently clear that there
was an unbroken chain in the custody of the illicit drug purchased from
appellant.
Presumption
of Regularity of Performance Stands
Notably, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence that the police
officers were inspired by any improper motive, this Court will not appreciate
the defense of denial and instead apply the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duty by law enforcement agents.
In the instant case, the defense of appellant consists of bare denial. It
is considered as an inherently weak defense, for it can easily be concocted and
is a common standard line of defense in drug cases.
Furthermore, as found by the trial court, the
defense has failed to show any evidence of ill motive on the part of the police
officers:
Such allegation of the accused that his apprehension was just a result of
a frame-up, as he was not really engaged in peddling shabu when he was arrested, cannot be given credence because he was
not able to offer and show proof of any previous disagreement between him and
the arresting law officers that may lead the police officers to concoct and
hatch baseless accusations against him, or the presence of any other
circumstances that may have fired up the ire of the police officers against
him.[24] x x x
For this reason, we uphold the presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duties and find that the prosecution has
discharged its burden of proving the guilt of appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision of the CA in CA-G.R. CR No. 02648
finding appellant Victorio Pagkalinawan guilty of the crimes charged is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice Associate
Justice
JOSE CATRAL
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
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-11. Penned by Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes and concurred in by Associate Justices Vicente Q. Roxas and Pampio A. Abarintos.
[10] People v. Bayani, G.R. No. 179150, June 17, 2008, 554 SCRA 741; citing People v. Gatong-o, No. L-78698, December 29, 1988, 168 SCRA 716, 717.
[12] People v. Herrera, G.R. No. 93728, August 21, 1995, 247 SCRA 433, 439; People v. Tadepa, G.R. No. 100354, May 26, 1995, 244 SCRA 339.
[17] People v. Pendatun, 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.