FIRST
DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE
Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - MANUEL
CRUZ y CRUZ, Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 187047 Present: VELASCO, JR., J.,*
Acting Chairperson, LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, BERSAMIN,** PEREZ,
JJ. Promulgated: June 15, 2011 |
|
|
|
|
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
PEREZ, J.:
This is an appeal from the Decision[1]
dated 23 September 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02603,
affirming in toto the Decision[2]
dated 22 September 2006 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Paraaque City,
Branch 259, in Criminal Case No. 05-0254, finding herein appellant Manuel Cruz y Cruz guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
illegal sale of 1.53 grams of shabu,
a dangerous drug, in violation of
Section 5,[3]
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165,[4]
thereby, sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a
fine of P500,000.00.
Appellant
Manuel Cruz y Cruz was charged in two
(2) separate Informations[5] both
dated 24 February 2005 with violation of Sections 5 and 11,[6]
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, which were respectively docketed as Criminal
Case No. 05-0254 and Criminal Case No. 05-0255.
The Informations read as follows:
Criminal Case No. 05-0254
That on or about the 23rd day of February 2005 in the City of Paraaque, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named [appellant], a (sic) not being lawfully authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) weighing 1.53 gram, a dangerous drugs (sic).[7] [Emphasis supplied].
Criminal
Case No. 05-0255
That on or about the 23rd day of February 2005, in the City of Paraaque, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named [appellant], not being authorized by law to possess, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and under his control and custody Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) weighing 1.42 gram, a dangerous drug.[8] [Emphasis supplied].
Upon
arraignment, appellant, assisted by counsel de
oficio, pleaded NOT GUILTY[9] to
both charges. By agreement of the parties,
the pre-trial conference was terminated.[10] Trial on the merits ensued thereafter.
The
prosecution presented the testimony of Police Officers 2 Nemesio Gallano (PO2
Gallano) and Darwin Boiser (PO2 Boiser), both of whom are members of the
Philippine National Police (PNP) assigned at the District Anti-Illegal Drugs
Special Operation Team (DAID-SOT), Southern Police District, Fort Bonifacio,
Taguig, Metro Manila.[11] PO2 Gallano acted as the poseur-buyer while PO2 Boiser served as the immediate back-up of
PO2 Gallano in the buy-bust operation against appellant.
The
formal taking of the testimony of Police Inspector Abraham Verde Tecson
(P/Insp. Tecson) was dispensed[12]
with after both parties stipulated on the following Exhibits and its sub-markings,
to wit: (1) Exhibit A, the Request for Laboratory Examination[13]
of the two small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing white
crystalline substance seized from appellant and duly marked as NG-1-230205
and NG-2-230205, respectively; (2) Exhibit B, the small brown size mailing
envelope that contained the two small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets
with white crystalline substance;[14]
and (3) Exhibit C, the Chemistry Report No. D-143-05.[15] The said stipulation was subject to the
condition that P/Insp. Tecson has no personal knowledge of the facts and
circumstances surrounding the recovery of the subject specimen; that he only
made a qualitative examination of the same; and that Physical Science Report No.
D-143-05 was not made under oath.[16]
As
culled from the records and testimonies of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses,
the factual antecedents of this case are as follows:
On 23 February 2005, at
around 1:30 p.m., while Senior Police Officer 2 Rey Millari (SPO2 Millari) was
at their office at DAID-SOT, Southern Police District, Fort Bonifacio, Taguig,
Metro Manila, a male informant came in with an information that a certain alias Maning was engaged in selling
illegal drugs at Sitio de Asis, Barangay San Martin de Porres, Paraaque
City. SPO2 Millari immediately relayed
such information to Police Chief Inspector Tito M. Oraya (P/Chief Insp. Oraya),
Chief of DAID-SOT. P/Chief Insp. Oraya
then directed PO2 Gallano, one of the police operatives of DAID-SOT, to verify
the said information. PO2 Gallano
acceded by making telephone calls to the people he knew in Sitio de Asis, Barangay San Martin de Porres,
Thereafter, PO2 Gallano
told P/Chief Insp. Oraya that the information relayed to them by the male
informant was true and accurate.
Accordingly, a buy-bust operation against alias Maning was planned and a team was formed composed of: PO2
Gallano, who was designated as the poseur-buyer;
PO2 Boiser, who was to serve as PO2 Gallanos immediate back-up; SPO2 Millari,
Police Officer 3 Sergio Delima (PO3 Delima), PO2 Gerald Marion Lagos (PO2
Lagos), PO2 Cerilo Zamora (PO2 Zamora) and the other police operatives of
DAID-SOT, all of whom were assigned as perimeter back-up. P/Chief Insp. Oraya then gave four (4) pieces
of P500.00 peso bills amounting to P2,000.00 to PO2 Gallano as buy-bust
money, which the latter marked with JG, representing the initials of Jose
Gentiles, Chief of the District Intelligence and Investigation Branch. During the briefing, the male informant was
also present. The pre-arranged signal of
the buy-bust team was a missed call from PO2 Gallano to PO2 Boiser.[18]
At around P500.00 peso bills
amounting to P2,000.00. In
exchange thereto, alias Maning gave
PO2 Gallano one piece plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance
equivalent to the money the latter gave to the former.[19]
Immediately thereafter,
PO2 Gallano gave a missed call to PO2 Boiser as their pre-arranged signal signifying
that the sale transaction has already been consummated. PO2 Boiser and the rest of the buy-bust team,
who were just within the vicinity of the target area, proceeded, at once, to
the place where PO2 Gallano, alias
Maning and the male informant were. PO2
Gallano and the other members of the buy-bust team then introduced themselves
to alias Maning as police
officers. PO2 Gallano with the help of
PO2 Boiser effected the arrest of alias
Maning. In the course thereof, another
plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance was recovered by PO2
Gallano in the possession of alias
Maning. The marked money consisting of
four (4) pieces of P500 peso bills amounting to P2,000.00 was
also recovered from alias Maning. PO2 Gallano then marked the one piece plastic
sachet containing white crystalline substance subject of the sale with NG-1-230205
while the other plastic sachet also containing white crystalline substance found
in the possession of alias Maning on
the occasion of his arrest was marked with NG-2-230205.[20]
Thereafter, appellant was
brought to the office of DAID-SOT, Southern Police District,
The
defense, on the other hand, presented the lone testimony of herein appellant,
who denied all the accusations against him.
Appellant
claimed that, on
After
a while, four to five male persons in civilian clothes, who introduced
themselves to be policemen, entered the gate of his house and immediately
arrested and handcuffed him for his alleged refusal to cooperate and to give
them tong. He was then pulled outside and was forcefully
boarded inside a vehicle. He was,
thereafter, brought to
The trial court, convinced on the
merits of the prosecutions case, rendered a Decision dated 22 September 2006
finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 05-0254
for the crime of illegal sale of shabu,
a dangerous drug, in violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No.
9165 and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of
P500,000.00. The trial court,
however, ordered the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 05-0255 for the crime of
illegal possession of shabu, a
dangerous drug, in violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165,
elucidating that appellants possession of small quantity of shabu can be considered as part and
parcel of his nefarious trade. The trial
court, thus, decreed:
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, finding
MANUEL CRUZ [y] CRUZ GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt for Violation of
Section 5, Art. II, [Republic Act No.] 9165, he is hereby sentenced to
suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00.
Criminal Case No. 05-0255 against Manuel Cruz Cruz for alleged violation of Section 11, Art. II,
[Republic Act No.] 9165 is ordered dismissed said possession of small quantity
of shabu being considered as part and
parcel of his nefarious trade.
The
Clerk of Court is directed to prepare the Mittimus
for the immediate transfer of MANUEL CRUZ [y] CRUZ from Paraaque City Jail to
New Bilibid Prisons,
Appellant
appealed the aforesaid trial courts Decision to the Court of Appeals via Notice of Appeal.[26]
In his Brief, appellant assigned the
following errors:
I.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING THE [APPELLANT]S SEARCH AND ARREST AS ILLEGAL.
II.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE [APPELLANT] OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[27]
After a thorough study of
the records, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed Decision dated
The Court of Appeals ratiocinated as
follows:
Sufficient evidence was presented by the prosecution to show that appellant was caught in flagrante delicto in a legitimate entrapment operation conducted by the police.
x x x x
The passing of shabu from appellants hand to PO2 [Gallano] in exchange for P2,000.00 constituted a violation of Republic Act No. 9165. The police officers were, therefore, justified in arresting appellant without any warrant and in seizing the plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance as corpus delicti of the crime. x x x
Appellant argues that he was framed up. The police officers planted the evidence against him and records do not show that the marked money was recorded in the police blotter.
Appellants defense of denial and frame up is without basis. The testimony of PO2 [Gallano] was corroborated by the testimony of PO2 [Boiser]. Their testimonies are supported by other evidence which are (a) the sachets containing illegal substance seized from the appellant and (b) the marked money. x x x
x x x x
The Court is convinced that the guilt of the appellant was proven beyond reasonable doubt. He was caught in flagrante delicto in a buy-bust operation. A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment whereby ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan. Unless there is a convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or were not properly performing their duty, their testimony on the operation deserves full faith and credit.[28] [Emphasis supplied].
Not
satisfied, appellant comes to this Court contending that his warrantless arrest
was illegal as he was not committing any crime at the time of his arrest. Neither can it be said that he was about nor
has just committed a crime as he was merely standing in the garage of his house
waiting for his turn to use the bathroom.
Appellant further insists that the
police officers merely planted the shabu
seized from him so he can be prosecuted for the illegal sale of dangerous
drugs, i.e., shabu, in retaliation for their failure to extort money from
him.
In
front of the established circumstances leading to the warrantless arrest, appellants
contentions fail to persuade.
Primarily, it is a
well-entrenched principle that findings of fact of the trial court as to the
credibility of witnesses are accorded great weight and respect when no glaring
errors, gross misapprehension of facts, and speculative, arbitrary and
unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. The rationale behind this rule 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 trial. This rule finds an even
more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals.[29] In the case under consideration, this Court
finds no cogent reason to deviate from the findings of the trial court, which
were affirmed by the appellate court.
Jurisprudence clearly set
the essential elements to be established in the prosecution for illegal sale of
shabu, viz: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the
sale and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and payment
therefor. Succinctly, the delivery of
the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer
and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummates the
buy-bust transaction.[30] What is material, therefore, is the proof
that the transaction or sale transpired, coupled with the presentation in court
of the corpus delicti.[31] In this case, the prosecution successfully established
the aforesaid elements beyond moral certainty.
To note, appellant was caught in flagrante delicto delivering one piece
plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance weighing 1.53 grams to
PO2 Gallano, the poseur-buyer, for a
consideration of P2,000.00. The white
crystalline substance contained in the said one piece plastic sachet handed by
appellant to PO2 Gallano was later on confirmed to be methamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu per Chemistry
Report No. D-143-05 dated 24 February 2005 issued by the PNP Crime Laboratory. During trial, PO2 Gallano positively
identified appellant as the same person who sold and handed him the one piece
plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance, proven to be shabu, in exchange for P2,000.00.[32] When the said one piece plastic sachet
containing white crystalline substance confirmed to be shabu was presented in court, PO2 Gallano identified it to be the
same object sold to him by appellant because of the markings found thereon, i.e., NG-1-230205, which he, himself,
has written at the place where appellant was arrested. PO2 Gallano similarly identified in court the
recovered buy-bust money from appellant consisting of four (4) pieces of P500
peso bills amounting to P2,000.00 with markings JG, representing the
initials of Jose Gentiles, the Chief of the District Intelligence and
Investigation Branch.
More so, the testimonies
of the prosecution witnesses and the documentary evidence offered in court gave
a detailed picture of the series of events that transpired in the afternoon of
23 February 2005 in Sitio de Asis, Barangay San Martin de Porres, Paraaque
City, leading to the consummation of the transaction, i.e., illegal sale of shabu. The prosecution vividly showed how PO2
Gallano, the poseur-buyer, was
introduced by their male informant to appellant as a security guard in need of shabu for his personal use. The same was followed by a query from the appellant
as to how much shabu PO2 Gallano
would buy. Appellant subsequently asked
for PO2 Gallanos money. The latter then
handed to the former the marked money consisting of four (4) pieces of P500.00
peso bills amounting to P2,000.00.
In exchange thereto, appellant gave PO2 Gallano one piece plastic sachet
containing white crystalline substance equivalent to the money the latter gave
to the former.
With the foregoing, it is
crystal clear that the sale transaction of illicit drug between the poseur-buyer and the appellant was successfully
consummated. Accordingly, whatever doubt
in connection with appellants culpability can no longer be questioned after being
caught in a buy-bust operation conducted by the police operatives of the
DAID-SOT, Southern Police District, Fort Bonifacio, Taguig, Metro Manila.
On the legality of appellants
warrantless arrest, it bears stressing that he was arrested in an entrapment
operation where he was caught in flagrante
delicto selling shabu. An arrest made after an entrapment operation does
not require a warrant inasmuch as it is considered a valid warrantless arrest
pursuant to Rule 113, Section 5(a) of the Rules of Court,[33]
which specifically provides 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;
In People v. Sembrano[34] citing
People v. Agulay,[35]
this Court held that 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. If carried out with due
regard for constitutional and legal safeguards, a buy-bust operation, as in
this case, deserves judicial sanction.[36] Moreover, in a buy-bust operation, the violator is caught in flagrante delicto and the police officers conducting the same are
not only authorized but also duty-bound to apprehend the violator and
consequently search him for anything that may have been part of or used in the
commission of the crime.[37]
In the case at bench, after
the police operatives of DAID-SOT, Southern Police District,
Appellants assertion that he was
just framed up as the shabu seized
from him was planted evidence so he can be prosecuted for the illegal sale
thereof finds no support in evidence.
Denial or frame up is a standard
defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs
Law. As such, it has been viewed by the
court with disfavor for it can just as easily be concocted.[39] It should not accord a redoubtable sanctuary
to a person accused of drug dealing unless the evidence of such frame up is
clear and convincing.[40] Without proof of any intent on the part of
the police officers to falsely impute appellant in the commission of a crime,
the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and the
principle that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses
are entitled to great respect, deserve to prevail over the bare denials and self-serving
claims of appellant that he had been framed up.[41] Neither can appellants claim of alleged
extortion by the police operatives be entertained. Absent any proof, appellants
assertion of extortion allegedly committed by the police officers could not be
successfully interposed. It remains one
of those standard, worn-out, and impotent excuses of malefactors prosecuted for
drug offenses. What appellant could have
done was to prove his allegation and not just casually air it.[42]
In this case, appellant failed to
substantiate such defense. Other than
his self-serving allegation, no other evidence whether testimonial or
documentary has been adduced by him to strengthen his claim. No one was ever presented by the defense to
corroborate the version of events proffered by the appellant. Hence, appellants defense of bare denial or
frame up is highly unacceptable.
As a
last ditch effort to exonerate himself, appellant even avows that the marked
money used during the buy-bust operation was not shown to have been previously
recorded in the police blotter, which allegedly paralyzed the cause of the
prosecution.
The case cited by appellant, i.e., People v. Fulgarillas,[43]
in support of the aforesaid allegation is not applicable in the present case. In People
v. Fulgarillas, the poseur-buyer
was never presented as a witness, so, the court held that the testimonies of
the rest of the members of the buy-bust team are merely hearsay. There was even no testimony that when the
appellant therein handed the stuff to the poseur-buyer,
the latter in turn handed the marked money.
The only evidence therein that could prove the sale transaction of
illicit drug was the marked money but the records did not show that the
markings thereon were previously blotted.
Thus, the Court held therein that [t]he act of blottering is the
correct and regular procedure by which the regularity of the preparation of
marked money may be established. Without
such blotter, all attempts at establishing regularity remains dubious.[44]
Such was not the case here since the poseur-buyer herein, i.e., PO2 Gallano, was presented by the
prosecution as a witness. Accordingly, the
principle enunciated in People v.
Fulgarillas finds no application in this case. To repeat, the testimony of PO2 Gallano
clearly showed how the sale transaction between him and the appellant was
consummated. It started the moment PO2
Gallano was introduced by their male informant to appellant and expressed his
intention to buy shabu, until the
time appellant handed him the one piece plastic sachet containing white
crystalline substance, proven to be shabu,
in exchange to the four (4) pieces of P500.00 peso bills marked money
amounting to P2,000.00 that PO2 Gallano handed to appellant.
As aptly observed by the Court of
Appeals, the testimony of PO2 Gallano was corroborated by PO2 Boiser, the
formers immediate back up. The
testimonies of the said prosecution witnesses were likewise supported by other
pieces of evidence, to wit: (1) the one piece plastic sachet containing white
crystalline substance seized from appellant, which was identified in court by
PO2 Gallano to be the same object sold to him by appellant; and (2) the marked
money itself consisting of four (4) pieces of P500 peso bills amounting
to P2,000.00, which was also identified by PO2 Gallano in the course of
his testimony before the court a quo.
Granting arguendo that the marked money was not
previously recorded in the police blotter, the same is not fatal to the
prosecutions case primarily because the poseur-buyer
testified in regards to his transaction with the appellant coupled with the
presentation of the drug seized from the latter.
This Court held that neither
law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any of the money used in a
buy-bust operation, much less is it required that the boodle money be
marked. The only elements necessary
to consummate the crime is proof that the illicit transaction took place,
coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.[45] Both elements were satisfactorily proven in
the present case. There is also no rule
that requires the police to use only marked money in buy-bust operations. This
Court has in fact ruled that failure to use marked money or to present it in
evidence is not material since the sale cannot be essentially disproved by the
absence thereof. Its non-presentation
does not create a hiatus in the prosecutions
evidence for as long as the sale of the illegal drugs is adequately established
and the substance itself is presented before the court.[46]
Given the foregoing, it
is with more reason that failure to previously record in the police blotter the
marked money used in the buy-bust operation will neither affect nor paralyze
the cause of the prosecution considering that, in this case, the poseur-buyer testified and the seized shabu was presented in evidence.
As to penalty. The penalty for the
illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu,
is explicitly provided for in Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, viz:
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 broke in any of such transactions. [Emphasis
supplied].
It is clear from the
foregoing provision that the sale of any dangerous drug, like shabu, regardless of its quantity and
purity, carries with it the penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine
ranging from P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00.[47] In view, however, of the effectivity of Republic
Act No. 9346,[48] the
imposition of the supreme penalty of death has been proscribed.[49] Accordingly, the penalty applicable to appellant
shall only be life imprisonment and fine without eligibility for parole. This Court, therefore, sustains the penalty
of imprisonment and fine imposed upon appellant by the lower courts.
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C.
No. 02603 dated 23 September 2008, finding herein appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt in violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165
is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
Associate Justice |
WE CONCUR:
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
MARIANO C.
Associate
Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Courts Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief Justice
* Per Special Order No. 1003, Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. is designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division.
** Per Special Order No. 1000, Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin is designated as Additional Member in lieu of Chief Justice Renato C. Corona who is on official leave.
[1] Penned
by Associate Justice Sixto C. Marella, Jr. with Associate Justices Amelita G.
Tolentino and Japar B. Dimaampao, concurring.
Rollo, pp. 2-14.
[2] Penned
by Judge Zosimo V. Escano. CA rollo, pp. 7-11.
[3] SEC. 5.
[4] Otherwise
known as Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
[5] Records,
pp. 1, 10.
[6] SEC. 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
Otherwise, if the quantity involved
is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as
follows:
(1) x x x
(2) 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.
[7] Records,
p. 1.
[8]
[9] Per
Order dated 4 April 2005.
[10] Per
Order dated 2 June 2005.
[11] Now
[12] Per
Order dated 16 August 2005. Records, p.
22.
[13]
[14] CA
Decision dated 23 September 2008. Rollo, p. 3.
[15] Records,
p. 193.
[16] Per
Order dated 16 August 2005. Records, p.
22. A careful perusal of the said Physical
Science Report No. D-143-05 also known as Chemistry Report No. D-143-05 dated
24 February 2005 revealed that it was subscribed and sworn to before
Administering Officer, Police Inspector Alejandro C. De Guzman.
[17] Testimony
of PO2 Nemesio Gallano. TSN, 21 November 2005, pp. 4-17.
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22] Records,
p. 22.
[23] Testimony
of appellant. TSN, 9 August 2006, pp. 4-6.
[24]
[25] CA
rollo, p. 11.
[26]
[27] Brief
for the Accused-Appellant. CA rollo,
p. 23.
[28] Rollo, pp. 7-9 and pp. 13-14.
[29] People v. Andres, G.R. No. 193184, 7
February 2011.
[30] People v. Gonzales, 430 Phil. 504, 513
(2002).
[31] People v. Requiz, G.R. No. 130922, 19
November 1999, 318 SCRA 635, 647.
[32] Testimony
of PO2 Nemesio Gallano. TSN, 21 November 2005, p. 45.
[33] Teodosio v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
124346, 8 June 2004, 431 SCRA 194, 207.
[34] G.R.
No. 185848, 16 August 2010, 628 SCRA 328, 341.
[35] G.R.
No. 181747, 26 September 2008, 566 SCRA 571, 594.
[36] People v. Sembrano, supra note 34 at
341.
[37] People v. Juatan, G.R. No. 104378, 20
August 1996, 260 SCRA 532, 538.
[38] People v. Gonzales, supra note 30 at
513.
[39] People v. Chua Uy, 384 Phil. 70, 86
(2000).
[40] People v. Lising, G.R. No. 125510, 21
July 1997, 275 SCRA 804, 811.
[41] People v. Chua, G.R. No. 133789, 23
August 2001, 363 SCRA 562, 582-583.
[42]
[43] G.R.
No. 91160, 4 August 1992, 212 SCRA 76.
[44]
[45] People v. Gonzales, supra note 30 at
514.
[46] People v. Beriarmente, 418 Phil. 229,
237 (2001).
[47] People v. Sembrano, supra note 34 citing
People
v. Serrano, G.R. No. 179038, 6 May
2010, 620 SCRA 327, 345.
[48] Also
known as An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the
[49] People v. Sembrano, supra note 34.