Republic
of the
SUPREME
COURT
FIRST DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 194836 Present: VELASCO, JR., J., Acting
Chairperson,* LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, BERSAMIN,** PEREZ,
JJ. Promulgated: June
15, 2011 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
VELASCO, JR., J.:
This is an appeal from the July 21, 2010 Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03800 entitled People of the Philippines v. Arnold Castro y
Yanga which affirmed the January 6, 2009 Decision[2] in
Criminal Cases Nos. Q-04-125048-9 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 103
in
Criminal Case No. Q-04-125048 pertains to the Information filed against Castro
for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the accusatory portion of
which reads:
That on or about the 26th day of February, 2004 in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused not being authorized by law to sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any dangerous drug, did, then and there, wil[l]fully, and unlawfully sell, dispense, deliver, transport, distribute or act as broker in the said transaction, 0.03 (zero point zero three) gram of white crystalline substance containing Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride[,] a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]
On the other hand, in Criminal Case No. Q-04-125049, Castro was charged with
violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, as follows:
That on or about the 26th day of February, 2004 in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused not being authorized by law to possess or use any dangerous drug, did, then and there, wil[l]fully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his/her possession and control 0.07 (zero point zero seven) gram of white crystalline substance containing Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride[,] a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[4]
On arraignment, Castro pleaded not guilty to both
charges.[5]
Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
During trial, the prosecution presented the
testimonies of two (2) police witnesses, namely: P/Insp. Jaime Armenta (P/Insp.
Armenta) and PO2 Napoleon Zamora (PO2 Zamora).[6]
On the other hand, the defense presented the testimonies of Amalia Infante,
Amor Castro, and the accused himself.[7]
The Prosecutions Version of Facts
On February 26, 2004, at around 1:00 a.m., P/Insp. Armenta and PO2
Zamora, members of the Galas Police Station, received a report from a male
informant that a certain alias Idol
had been illegally selling drugs along Cordillera and Ramirez Streets in Brgy.
Consequently, Col. Razon formed a buy-bust operation
team, composed of more than four (4) policemen, which included P/Insp. Armenta
and PO2 Zamora.[10]
P/Insp. Armenta was designated as the poseur-buyer and was given a one hundred
peso bill as the buy-bust money, which he marked with his initials JA.[11]
P/Insp. Armenta was also the one who prepared and sent a Pre-Operation Report[12]
to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper coordination.[13]
The buy-bust team was dispatched in two (2) private
vehicles to Brgy.
The confidential informant introduced P/Insp. Armenta
to Castro as a prospective buyer of shabu.[17]
Thereafter, Castro asked P/Insp. Armenta how much, to which the latter
responded piso, which meant Php100.00.[18]
P/Insp. Armenta then handed the one hundred peso buy-bust money to Castro.[19]
The latter, in turn, gave him a transparent plastic sachet containing white
crystalline substance that he pulled out from his pocket.[20]
Afterwards, P/Insp. Armenta scratched his head to signal to his team members that the
transaction was already consummated.[21] Accordingly,
the buy-bust team immediately closed in and arrested Castro. PO2 Zamora
informed Castro of his violation, frisked him and recovered from his pocket two
(2) more transparent plastic sachets of white crystalline substance, as well as
the marked money.[22]
P/Insp. Armenta took custody of the transparent
plastic sachet that Castro sold to him, while PO2 Zamora kept the marked money
and the two (2) other plastic sachets which he recovered.[23]
When they reached their office, P/Insp. Armenta marked the transparent plastic
sachet in his custody with his initials and the initials of Castro (JA-AC).[24]
PO2 Zamora also marked the two (2) other sachets with his initials and also
that of Castros (NZ-AC).[25]
The three (3) transparent plastic sachets were then turned over to the
investigator, police officer Alexander Jimenez, who prepared and submitted a
letter-request for analysis.[26]
Forensic Chemist/Police Inspector Leonard T. Arban of the PNP Crime
Laboratory made a chemical analysis on the seized items.[27]
In his Chemistry Report No. D-226-04, he confirmed that the three (3)
transparent plastic sachets were positive for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride.[28]
Version of the Defense
Castro claimed that on February 24, 2004, at around 9:00 p.m., he was
taking a rest in front of their house at
To corroborate Castros claim, his neighbor, Amalia Infante, testified
that while she was walking along
Castros father, Amor Castro, also testified that on February 24, 2004,
at around 9:00 p.m., he was watching television with his other children when he
heard the sound of a car engine in front of his house.[35]
When he looked outside, he saw four (4) men in civilian clothes putting his
son, Castro, inside a police mobile car.[36] These
men then told him to follow them at the Galas Police Station.[37]
When he arrived at the police station, Castro told him that PO2 Zamora was
allegedly demanding Php30,000.00 for his release.[38]
He also claimed that Castro was plying his route as a tricycle driver on
February 26, 2004.[39]
Ruling of the Trial Court
After trial, the RTC, on January 6, 2009, convicted Castro.
The dispositive portion of its Decision reads:
ACCORDINGLY, judgment is rendered finding the accused ARNOLD CASTRO y Yanga GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the two offenses of which he is charged at bench, and he is hereby sentenced as follows:
I. In Q-04-125048 the accused is sentenced to LIFE IMPRISONMENT for violation of Section 5, of RA 9165 (drug-pushing) as charged, and ordered to pay a fine of P500,000.00; and
II. In Q-04-125049 the same accused is sentenced to suffer a jail term of 12 years and 1 day, as minimum to 13 years, as maximum and to pay a fine of P300,000.00 for violating Section 11, R.A. 9165 (possession).
The three (3) plastic sachets of shabu in these two cases are ordered transmitted to the PDEA thru DDB for proper disposal as per RA 9165.
In the courts personal opinion, the accused Arnold y Castro should only be found guilty of one (1) crime of drugpushing and not possession in addition, for his possession of the two other sachets appears to be sachets that he intended to sell to others. Nonetheless, since the Supreme Court has a contrary opinion in decided cases, this court cannot do anything but follow and obey that Supreme Court doctrine for as long as it has not been changed.
SO ORDERED.[40]
On appeal to the CA, Castro questioned the lower
courts Decision in convicting him notwithstanding the prosecutions alleged
failure to preserve the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti of the offenses charged, and its supposed failure to
prove his guilt with moral certainty.[41]
Ruling of the Appellate Court
On July 21, 2010, the CA affirmed the judgment of the
lower court. It ruled that both the sale and possession of illegal drugs were
adequately established by the prosecution. It noted that Castro was caught in flagrante delicto in selling shabu to P/Insp. Armenta during the
buy-bust operation and that he was also caught in possession of two (2) other
sachets of shabu in his pocket.[42]
The CA also held that the trial courts findings on
the credibility of witnesses are accorded great weight and respect because the
trial judge has the direct opportunity to observe them on the stand and
ascertain if they are telling the truth or not.[43]
Further, the CA ruled that the chain of custody of the seized prohibited drugs
was shown not to have been broken as the handling of the sachets was free of
any physical distortion.[44]
The fallo of
the CA Decision reads:
Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated January 6, 2009 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.[45]
On August 5, 2010, Castro filed his Notice
of Appeal of even date.[46]
In Our Resolution dated January 26, 2011,[47]
We notified the parties that they may file their respective supplemental
briefs, if they so desire, within thirty (30) days from notice. On March 21,
2011, Castro manifested that he will no longer file a supplemental brief as the
assigned errors and issues have already been thoroughly discussed in his Brief for the Accused-Appellant dated
October 20, 2009.[48]
Similarly, the People of the
Castro contends in his Brief that:
I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED
IN CONVICTING THE ACUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE PROSECUTIONS FAILURE TO
PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY AND IDENTITY OF THE CORPUS
DELICTI OF THE OFFENSES CHARGED.
II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED
IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIMES CHARGED WHEN HIS GUILT WAS
NOT PROVEN WITH MORAL CERTAINTY.
We sustain Castros conviction.
Chain of Custody Established
Castro contends that that the prosecution
patently failed to preserve the integrity of the seized items and to establish
an unbroken chain of custody.[50]
He claims that the police officer who had initial contact with the seized
articles failed to observe the proper procedure in its handling and custody.[51]
He insists that under Section 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations
(IRR) of RA 9165, the apprehending team having initial control of the seized
items should immediately after seizure or confiscation, have the same
physically inventoried and photographed in the presence of the accused, if
there be any, and/or his representative, who shall be required to sign the
copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.[52]
He further asserts that the dangerous drug
itself constitutes the very corpus
delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment
of conviction, thus, it is essential that the identity of the prohibited drug
be established beyond doubt.[53]
Undeniably, in every prosecution for illegal
sale of prohibited drugs, the presentation in evidence of the seized drug, as
an integral part of the corpus delicti,
is most material.[54]
It is therefore vital that the identity of the prohibited drug be proved with
moral certainty.[55]
Also, the fact that the substance bought or seized during the buy-bust
operation is the same item offered in court as exhibit must be established with
the same degree of certitude.[56] It is in this respect that the chain of
custody requirement performs its function, that is, to ensure that all unnecessary
doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.[57]
Contrary to the claim of Castro, the chain of
custody of the seized prohibited drugs was adequately established in the case
at bar. As aptly observed by the CA:
Here,
appellant was brought to the police station immediately after the illegal drugs
and marked money were seized from him. The confiscated substances were marked
accordingly, turned over to investigator PO Alexander Jimenez, and submitted to
the PNP crime laboratory for analysis. Forensic chemist Arban tested the
substances and after finding them positive for shabu, issued his chemistry
report also on February 26, 2004, or within 24 hours after confiscation of the
items. Thus, the trial court correctly upheld the admissibility of the seized
items upon its finding that handling of the sachets was free of any physical
distortion.[58]
Admittedly, testimony about a perfect chain is
not always the standard as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken
chain.[59]
Nonetheless, what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity
and the evidentiary value of the seized items.[60]
Pertinently, the Implementing Rules and
Regulations of RA 9165 on the handling and disposition of seized dangerous
drugs is clear on this matter, thus:
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.)
Based on the above-quoted provision, the
custodial chain rule is not to be rigorously applied provided the integrity
and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending officer/team.[61] Consequently, the purported procedural
infirmities harped on by Castro concerning the custody, photographing,
inventory and marking of the seized items do not in any manner affect the
prosecution of the instant case. Neither do the alleged infirmities render Castros
arrest illegal nor the items seized from him inadmissible.
Castro, however, further contends that in
order to properly establish, with moral certainty, the chain of custody, it is
the prosecutions duty to show that in every link of the chain from the
moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence there
was no contamination or an opportunity to alter the object evidence.[62]
We disagree. In the recent case of People v. Quiamanlon, this Court held that
the integrity of the evidence is presumed to be preserved, unless there is a
showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered
with.[63]
Concomitantly, it is Castro who bears the
burden to make some showing that the evidence was tampered or meddled with to
overcome a presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public
officers, as well as a presumption that said public officers properly
discharged their duties.[64]
Since Castro failed to discharge such burden, it cannot be disputed that the
drugs seized from him were the same ones examined in the crime laboratory. The
prosecution, therefore, established the crucial link in the chain of custody of
the seized drugs.
Proof of guilt beyond
reasonable doubt adequately established
After a careful examination of the records of
this case, this Court is satisfied that the prosecutions evidence established Castros
guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
It is hornbook doctrine that the factual findings of the CA affirming
those of the trial court are binding on this Court unless there is a clear
showing that such findings are tainted with arbitrariness, capriciousness or
palpable error.[65] In People v. Lusabio, Jr., this
Court held:
All in all, we find the evidence of the prosecution to be more credible than that adduced by accused-appellant. When it comes to credibility, the trial court's assessment deserves great weight, and is even conclusive and binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence. The reason is obvious. Having the full opportunity to observe directly the witnesses' deportment and manner of testifying, the trial court is in a better position than the appellate court to evaluate testimonial evidence properly.[66] (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted)
Since Castro failed to show any palpable error, arbitrariness, or
capriciousness on the findings of fact of the lower courts, the same deserve
great weight and are deemed conclusive and binding.
In the prosecution for the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs under
Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the following elements must concur: (1) the
identities of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the
delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof.[67] Significantly,
what is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the
proof that the transaction or sale actually occurred, coupled with the
presentation in court of the substance seized as evidence.[68]
In the instant case, P/Insp. Armenta, the poseur-buyer, clearly testified
on the first element, thus:
FISCAL ARAULA
Q You said you were one of the members of the group that composed the team, in your particular way what will be your role?
WITNESS (P/INSP. ARMENTA)
A Poseur buyer.
Q Being a poseur buyer, what Col. Razon informed (sic) you?
A He provided P100 to be used on the buy bust operation.
xxx
Q Upon receiving that buy bust money, what did you do to that buy bust money?
A I put my initial JA on the right portion of the money.
Q Showing to you the photocopy of the buy bust money, what can you say?
A This is the machine copy.
Q Why do you say that is the machine copy, tell me why did you say that this is the buy bust money you received?
A Because of my initial (sic).
xxx
Q You said after the briefing Col. Razon gave you the money, what happened after that?
A We were on board the private vehicle and we proceeded to the place.
Q How many vehicles did you use?
A Two, sir.
Q What time was that?
A Past 2:00, sir.
Q What time your group arrived (sic) on (sic) barangay
A About 4:00 oclock a.m.
Q Upon arrival on (sic) that area, what happened then?
A Our informant introduced to me a male person identified as alias Idol.
Q In what particular place were you introduced?
A Near the lighted Meralco post.
Q Was he alone at the time?
A Yes, sir.
Q Were there other persons in the area?
A Very rare, sir.
Q How about your companions?
A They positioned themselves away that can view me.
xxx
Q The person you named Idol is present in the courtroom, can you identify that person?
A Yes, sir.
Q Please tap his shoulder? (sic)
INTERPRETER
Witness tapped the shoulder of a person inside the courtroom who identified himself as ARNOLD CASTRO.
Q By the way you said you received the transparent sachet coming from the accused in this case, if that transparent sachet will be shown to you can you identify that?
A Yes, sir.
Q Showing to you the transparent sachet, what can you say to that. (sic) Among the 3 sachets, can you identify the sachet you received from the accused?
A This is the one.
Q Why do you say?
A Because of my initial JA-AC.
xxx
Q You testified a while ago that you scratch (sic) your head as a pre-arranged signal, upon scratching your head what happened?
A The rest of the team rush (sic) to our place and effect the arrest of the accused.[69]
As regards the second element, P/Insp. Armenta also testified on the material
details of the buy-bust operation. Particularly:
Q You said you were introduced to the person named Idol, how did this informant of yours introduced you to the subject?
A He said to Idol that I am going to buy shabu.
Q What was the answer of Idol at that time?
A He asked me how I will (sic) going to buy.
Q What was your answer?
A Piso for P100.00
Q What was the action then?
A He asked [for] the money.
Q Did you give the money?
A Yes, sir.
Q After that?
A He placed it on (sic) his pocket and he took on (from) the same pocket the transparent sachet.
Q What did he do to the plastic sachet?
A He gave it to me.
Q And what did you do?
A I received it and I made a signal to my companion.[70]
As the poseur-buyer, P/Insp. Armenta
positively identified Castro during trial as the seller of the illegal drugs.
He also testified that, using the marked money, he paid for the object of the
crime, i.e., the shabu that was handed to him by Castro. Notably, the testimony of
P/Insp. Armenta was substantially corroborated by PO2 Zamora.
With respect to the charge of illegal possession of dangerous
drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, the evidence of the prosecution
has sufficiently established the elements thereof, to wit: (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 possessed the said drug.[71]
Pertinently, possession of dangerous drugs constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict
an accused in the absence of a satisfactory explanation of such possession.[72] As
a consequence, the burden of evidence is shifted to the accused to explain the
absence of knowledge or animus possidendi.[73]
In the case at bar, Castro miserably failed to discharge such burden.
When Castro was arrested upon the conclusion of the buy-bust
operation, PO2 Zamora bodily frisked him and was able to recover not only the
buy-bust money, but two (2) transparent plastic sachets containing white
crystalline substance as well. As testified by PO2 Zamora:
FISCAL ARAULA
Q When you accosted him, what happened, [M]r. [W]itness?
WITNESS (PO2
A We introduced ourselves as police officers[,] sir.
xxx
Q After that what happened, [M]r. [W]itness?
A I bodily frisked the person[,] sir.
Q What is the result [M]r. [W]itness?
A I was able to recover the buy bust money sir.
Q What part of the body, [M]r. [W]itness?
A Left front pocket[,] sir.
Q Other than that, what else, [M]r. [W]itness?
A Two small transparent plastic sachet[s], [M]r. [W]itness? (sic)
Q If that transparent plastic sachet you recovered will be shown to you, can you identify the same, [M]r. [W]itness?
A Yes[,] sir.
Q Why, [M]r. [W]itness?
A Because of the marking[,] sir.
Q What is the markings (sic), [M]r. [W]itness?
A NZ-AC sir.[74]
Significantly, the owner-possessor of said sachets can be no
other than Castro, who has neither shown any proof of the absence of animus possidendi nor presented any
evidence that would show that he was duly authorized by law to possess them during
the buy-bust operation, thus leading to no other conclusion than that Castro is
equally liable for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11,
Article II of RA 9165.
Denial as an Inherently Weak Defense
A bare denial is an inherently weak defense[75]
and has been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor for it can be easily
concocted but difficult to prove, and is a common standard line of defense in
most prosecutions arising from violations of RA 9165.[76]
Concomitantly, this Court has held in several
cases that denials unsubstantiated
by convincing evidence are not enough to engender reasonable doubt particularly
where the prosecution presents sufficiently telling proof of guilt,[77]
as in the case at bar.
As against P/Insp. Armentas positive identification of Castro as the
seller of the sachet containing the white crystalline substance eventually
confirmed to be a dangerous drug, Castros
denial is perceptibly self-serving and has little weight in law.
Also, it is of note that the testimonies of
Amalia Infante and Amor Castro failed to corroborate the testimony of Castro as
they both failed to witness the event from the time the police arrived at the
scene leading to the arrest of Castro.
Further, in the absence of any intent on the
part of the police authorities to falsely impute such crime against the
accused, the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty should stand.[78]
In view of the foregoing, We uphold the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and find that the prosecution has discharged
its burden of proving the guilt of Castro beyond reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03800 finding accused-appellant Arnold
Castro y Yanga guilty of the crimes charged is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN MARIANO C.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
JOSE
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article
VIII of the Constitution, 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 Courts Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
* Per Special Order No. 1003 dated June 8, 2011.
** Additional member per Special Order No. 1000 dated June 8, 2011.
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-13. Penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier and concurred in by Associate Justices Rebecca de Guia-Salvador and Sesinando E. Villon.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 19-24. Penned by Presiding Judge Jaime N. Salazar, Jr.
[3] CA rollo, p. 15.
[4] CA rollo, p. 17.
[5] Rollo, p. 3.
[6] CA rollo, p. 20.
[7] CA rollo, p. 21.
[8] Rollo, pp. 3-4.
[9] Rollo, p. 4.
[10] Rollo, p. 4.
[11] Rollo, p. 4.
[12] This Pre-Operation Report was given control number PDEA No. C-250204; rollo, p. 4.
[13] Rollo, p. 4.
[14] Rollo, p. 4.
[15] CA rollo, p. 20.
[16] Rollo, p. 4.
[17] Rollo, p. 4.
[18] Rollo, p. 4.
[19] Rollo, pp. 4-5.
[20] Rollo, pp. 4-5.
[21] CA rollo, p. 20.
[22] Rollo, p. 5.
[23] Rollo, p. 5.
[24] Rollo, p. 5.
[25] Rollo, p. 5.
[26] Rollo, p. 5.
[27] Rollo, p. 5.
[28] Rollo, p. 5.
[29] Rollo, p. 6.
[30] Rollo, p. 6.
[31] Rollo, p. 6.
[32] Rollo, p. 6.
[33] Rollo, p. 6.
[34] Rollo, p. 6.
[35] CA rollo, p. 22.
[36] CA rollo, p. 22.
[37] Rollo, p. 6.
[38] Rollo, p. 6.
[39] Rollo, pp. 6-7.
[40] CA rollo, pp. 23-24.
[41] CA rollo, p. 36.
[42] Rollo, p. 12.
[43] Rollo, p. 12.
[44] Rollo, p. 11.
[45] Rollo, pp. 12-13.
[46] Rollo, pp. 14-15.
[47] Rollo, pp. 19-20.
[48] Rollo, pp. 21-23.
[49] Rollo, pp. 29-30.
[50] CA rollo, pp. 43-44.
[51] CA rollo, p. 44.
[52] CA rollo, p. 45.
[53] CA rollo, p. 43.
[54] People v. Quiamanlon, G.R. No. 191198, January 26, 2011 citing People v. Doria, G.R. No. 125299,
[55] People v. Quiamanlon, G.R. No. 191198, January 26, 2011 citing People v. Cortez, G.R. No. 183819, July 23, 2009, 593 SCRA 743, 762.
[56] People v. Quiamanlon, G.R. No. 191198, January 26, 2011 citing People v. Cortez, G.R. No. 183819, July 23, 2009, 593 SCRA 743, 762.
[57] People v. Quiamanlon, G.R. No. 191198, January 26, 2011 citing People v. Cortez, G.R. No. 183819, July
23, 2009, 593 SCRA 743, 762 citing Malillin
v. People, G.R. No. 172953,
[58] Rollo, p. 11.
[59] People v. Quiamanlon, G.R. No. 191198, January 26, 2011 citing People v. Cortez, G.R. No. 183819, July 23, 2009, 593 SCRA 743, 763.
[60] People v. Quiamanlon, G.R. No. 191198, January 26, 2011.
[61] People v. Quiamanlon, G.R. No. 191198, January 26, 2011.
[62] CA rollo, p. 47.
[63] People v. Quiamanlon, G.R. No. 191198, January 26, 2011 citing People v. Ventura, G.R. No. 184957, October 27, 2009, 604 SCRA 543, 562.
[64] People v.
[65] Fuentes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109849, February 26, 1997, 268 SCRA 703, 708-709.
[66] G.R. No. 186119, October 27, 2009, 604 SCRA 565, 590.
[67] People v. Alberto, G.R. No. 179717, February 5, 2010, 611 SCRA 706, 713 citing People v. Dumlao, G.R. No. 181599, August 20, 2008, 562 SCRA 762, 770.
[68] People v. Alberto, G.R. No. 179717, February 5, 2010, 611 SCRA 706, 713 citing People v. Dumlao, G.R. No. 181599, August 20, 2008, 562 SCRA 762, 770.
[69] TSN, December 13, 2004, pp. 6-15.
[70] TSN, December 13, 2004, pp. 11-13.
[71] People v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 177777, December 4, 2009, 607 SCRA 377, 390-391 citing People v. Pringas, G.R. No. 175928, August 31, 2007, 531 SCRA 828, 846.
[72] People v. Quiamanlon, G.R. No. 191198, January 26, 2011 citing
[73] People v. Quiamanlon, G.R. No. 191198, January 26, 2011 citing
[74] TSN, March 20, 2006, pp. 14-17.
[75] People v. Dulay, G.R. No. 150624, February 24, 2004, 423 SCRA 652, 662 citing People v. Arlee, G.R. No. 113518, January 25, 2000, 323 SCRA 201, 214.
[76] People v. Barita, G.R. No. 123541, February 8, 2000, 325 SCRA 22, 38.
[77] People v. Eugenio, G.R. No. 146805, January 16, 2003, 395 SCRA 317, 326 citing People v. Del Mundo, GR No. 138929, October 2, 2001, 366 SCRA 471.
[78] People v. Cruz, G.R. No. 185381, December 16, 2009, 608 SCRA 350, 369.