Republic of the
Supreme Court
THIRD DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - FLORDELIZA ARRIOLA y DE LARA,
Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 187736 Present: VELASCO,
JR., J.,
Chairperson, PERALTA, ABAD, PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ. Promulgated: February 8, 2012 |
X ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X
D E C I S I O N
MENDOZA, J.:
This is an appeal from the
On
That on or about
the 13th day of December, 2002, in San Jose del Monte, province of
Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, without the authority of law and legal justification, did
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver, dispatch in
transit and transport dangerous drug consisting of four (4) heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachets having a total weight of 0.186 gram.
Contrary to law.[4]
The evidence for the prosecution
would show that a buy-bust operation was conducted on
Subsequently, a buy-bust operation
team was formed to act on the intelligence report they had gathered. SPO4
Abelardo Taruc (SPO4 Taruc) was designated as the poseur-buyer and he
was to be assisted by four (4) police aides and a civilian asset. Before going
to the target site, they prepared the marked money that would be used. Two (2)
one hundred (₱100) peso bills with serial numbers LE627251 and FP609651
were marked by placing SPO4 Tarucs initial AT on the bills.
When the team reached Arriolas house,
the civilian asset told Arriola that Iiscore daw siya, referring to SPO4
Taruc who was just beside him. Arriola replied by asking, Magkano? The asset answered, ₱200.00 po, and
then simultaneously handed over the marked money. In exchange for the amount, Arriola
gave them four (4) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing crystalline
substance. After the exchange of the marked money and the merchandise, SPO4
Taruc arrested Arriola. Upon her arrest, he recovered the marked money
that was earlier paid to her. The asset, on the other hand, turned over the
four (4) sachets that Arriola gave in exchange for the ₱200.00 paid to
her.
After the operation, the buy-bust
team brought Arriola and the seized articles to the police station, where the
four (4) confiscated sachets of shabu were marked AT and FA, the initials,
of SPO4 Taruc and that of Flordeliza Arriola, respectively. Thereafter, they
reported to the office of the Bulacan provincial police the successful buy-bust
operation which resulted in the apprehension of Arriola. Also, a laboratory examination request for the
seized articles was prepared and the said four (4) sachets of shabu were then brought
to the Bulacan Provincial Crime Laboratory Office.
The resident forensic chemical
officer, P/Insp. Nelson Cruz Sta. Maria (P/Insp. Sta. Maria), conducted
a qualitative examination of the specimen submitted. His findings contained in
Chemistry Report No. D-742-2002, showed that the four (4) sachets with markings
AT-FA, Exhibits A-1 to A-4, containing white crystalline substance yielded a
positive result of the presence of methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous
drug.
Arriola, however, has a different
version of what happened on the day of the buy-bust operation. According to her,
at around
Arriola further testified that while at
the police station, they entered the office of the Chief of Police, Col. Makusi,
where she was asked her name and her address. Then, he brought out a plastic
sachet which he took from another room. Later, she was brought outside the
office and escorted to a room with a group of men where she was made to point at
the plastic sachet. Afterwards, she was brought back to the office of Col.
Makusi but this time SPO4 Taruc was already inside. It was at this moment when
he asked her, Gusto mong makalaya? Pagbigyan mo lang ako ng kahit isang gabi.
Arriola replied by saying that she would not agree to his proposal because, to
begin with, she did not commit any crime. This reply angered SPO4 Taruc. In
sum, she was saying that there was no valid buy-bust operation as everything
was a set-up. The drugs as well as the marked money were all just taken from
the table of Col. Makusi and not from her as claimed by the prosecution.
On
WHEREFORE, accused
Flordeliza Arriola y Lara is hereby convicted for sale of the dangerous drugs
methylamphetamine hydrochloride commonly known as shabu in violation of Section
5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 and is sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and
to pay the fine of five hundred thousand pesos (Php500,000.00).
The specimen subject matter of this
case which consists of four (4) heat sealed transparent plastic sheets having a
total weight of 0.186 gram is hereby confiscated in favor of the government.
The Clerk of Court is directed to dispose of said specimen in accordance with
the existing procedure, rules and regulations.
Furnish both parties of this
judgment and the Provincial Jail Warden.
SO ORDERED.[5]
Aggrieved by the pronouncement of the
RTC, Arriola interposed an appeal with the CA. On
According to the CA, the account of SPO4
Taruc, the poseur-buyer, was corroborated in every material detail by the
affidavits executed under oath by the buy-bust team, debunking the version of Arriola
that what transpired was a set-up. The
CA held that denial and frame-up were intrinsically weak defenses as they were viewed
with disfavor as they could easily be concocted.
As to the position of Arriola that
the buy-bust operation was illegal because of the absence of coordination
between the buy-bust team and the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA),
the CA debunked it citing People v. Sta. Maria[6] where
the Court held that there is nothing in R.A. No. 9165 which indicates an intention
on the part of the legislature to consider an arrest made without the
participation of the PDEA illegal and evidence obtained pursuant to such an
arrest inadmissible.
Finally, the CA also agreed with the
RTC that failure of the operatives to strictly comply with Section 21 of R.A.
No. 9165 was not fatal. It did not render the arrest of Arriola illegal and the
evidence gathered against her inadmissible. As noted by the CA, the
alleged violations of Sections 21 and 86 of R.A. No. 9165 were never raised
before the RTC but were brought out for the first time only on appeal. This,
according to the CA, was against the ruling in the case of People v. Uy[7] where
it was held that when a party wants a court to reject the evidence offered, he
must so state in the form of objection. In other words, one cannot raise said
question for the first time on appeal.
Hence, the present appeal.
From the records, the following are
the principal issues raised by the Arriola for our consideration, to wit:
I.
WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS REALLY A BUY-BUST
OPERATION.
II.
WHETHER OR NOT
THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY RULE HAS BEEN PROPERLY OBSERVED.
III.
WHETHER OR NOT
NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 21 OF R.A. NO. 9165 IS
DETRIMENTAL TO THE PROSECUTIONS CASE.
The Court finds no merit in the petition.
On the first issue, Arriola argues that
no buy-bust operation took place but rather a frame-up with her as the victim. She
stuck to her story that when the policemen arrived at her house, they were
looking for a certain Ogie Dela Cruz. And when she could not help them, she was
brought to the police station where all the evidence against her were produced
by Col. Makusi.
Time and again, this Court has ruled
that alibi and frame up are weak forms of defense usually resorted to in drug-related
cases. In this regard, the Court is careful in appreciating them and giving them
probable value because this type of defense is easy to concoct. This Court is,
of course, not unaware of instances when our law enforcers would utilize means
like planting evidence just to extract information, but then again the Court
does realize the disastrous consequences on the enforcement of law and order,
not to mention the well-being of society, if the courts, solely on the basis of
the police officers' alleged rotten reputation, accept in every instance this
form of defense which can be so easily fabricated. It is precisely for this
reason that the legal presumption that official duty has been regularly
performed exists. Bare denial cannot prevail over the positive identification
by SPO4 Taruc of Arriola as the one who sold them the shabu.[8] For
the defense position to prosper, the defense must adduce clear and convincing
evidence to overcome the presumption that government officials have performed
their duties in a regular and proper manner.[9]
This, unfortunately, Arriola failed to supply. What she made was a bare
allegation of frame-up without presenting any credible witness that would
support her claim.
Furthermore, she failed to show any motive on
the part of the arresting officers to implicate her in a crime she claimed she
did not commit. On this point, it is good to note the case of People v. Dela
Rosa, where this Court held that in cases involving violations of the
Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police
officers for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular
manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary suggesting ill-motive on the
part of the police officers.[10]
In fact, Arriola herself testified that it was the first time she saw SPO4
Taruc and the rest of the arresting team and that she did not know of any
motive why SPO4 Taruc or any of the police aides would arrest her.[11]
Thus, there could be no reason for SPO4 Taruc or any member of the buy-bust
team to begrudge her since they did not know each other. This only goes to show
that she was not arrested by reason of any personal vendetta or prejudice on
the part of the raiding team as what Arriola was trying to impress. The simple
fact was that she was caught in flagrante delicto peddling prohibited
drugs.
In the prosecution of illegal sale of
dangerous drugs, the following elements must be established: (1) identities of
the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery
of the thing sold and the payment thereof.[12] What
is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place,
coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti. The
delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked
money consummate the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and
the accused.[13] In
other words, the commission of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs,
like shabu, merely requires the consummation of the selling transaction,
which happens the moment the exchange of money and drugs between the buyer and the
seller takes place.
In the present case, all the elements
have been clearly established during the direct and cross-examination of SPO4
Taruc:
Fiscal:
Q: What
happened when you reached the place?
A: We
conducted the buy bust operation, Sir.
Q:
How did you carry out the buy bust?
A: After
I gave the money to our civilian asset, we proceeded to the house, Sir, of the
target.
Q: And
when you said you proceeded to the house of Flordeliza together with your
civilian asset, what happened next?
A: The
civilian asset gave the ₱200.00
to Flordeliza in exchange of what Flordeliza gave him, the 4 sachet of shabu,
Sir. And after that, I arrested her and introduced myself as a police officer.
Q: Who
actually received the 4 pieces of sachet?
A: The
civilian asset who is in my company.
Fiscal
Q: How
far were you when the exchange was made?
A: Just
beside him.
Fiscal
Q: You
said you arrested her, what did you do upon the arrest of Flordeliza?
A: After
I have arrested her, I brought her to our police station and marked the
evidence with my initials and prepared the request for the laboratory
examination for me to bring the items for examination.
Q: What
happened to the 4 sachets handed to by Flordeliza to your asset?
A: I
marked them with my initials to prepare the request to be brought to the crime
laboratory.
Fiscal
Q: Will
you be able to identify those 4 sachets [since] you were the one who saw the
transaction and [was] the one who prepared the request for laboratory
examination?
A: Yes,
Sir.
Q: Why?
A: I
placed my initial and the initial of Flordeliza Arriola.
Q: Where
were you at the time you placed your initials?
A: She
was there at the investigating room, Sir.
Fiscal
I
am showing to you 4 sachets; please identify the relevance of these 4 sachets
to one you referred earlier as the subject of [the] transaction between your
asset and Flordeliza.
A: These
are the items bought from her and in fact here are the initials I placed.
Sachet with initials AT and FA 1, 2, 3, 4.
Q: The
brown envelope on which these 4 sachets was placed were already marked as Exh.
C. And the medium size transparent plastic sachet as Exh. C-1. The 4 sachets in
which shabu were placed were previously marked as Exh. C-2, 3, 4, 5.
Q: How
about the money, what happened to the testimony given to Flordeliza by your
asset?
A: In
arresting her, I recovered money from her.
Q: In
what part of her body were you able to recover that?
A: In
her hand, Sir.
Q: Now,
will you be able to identify those bills used in that buy bust operation?
A: Yes
sir.
Q: I
have here a photocopy of the bills, by the way what marking did you place?
A: The
initial of my name, AT, Sir.
Fiscal
Do you remember where you placed the
initials AT?
A: Yes
Sir.
Q: Where?
A:
In the collar of the picture depicted in the said bills
Q: I
am showing to you 2 photocopies of ₱100
peso bills, please identify if these were the one you used in the operation.
A: These
were the bills used, Sir.
Fiscal
Witness is identifying the photocopies
the first 100 peso bill with serial number LE627251 we request as Exh. D.
Q: In
this bill, can you please point to us the initials you mentioned.
A: Here
Sir. (Witness pointing to the initial AT on the left collar of the person in
the bill).
Q: We
request likewise for the marking of the initial pointed to by the witness in
the collar of Manuel Roxas as Exh. D-1. The second bill with serial number
FP609605 earlier identified as Exh. E and E-1 for the initial. Provisional
marking your Honor.
Court: Mark them.
Fiscal
You mentioned of the preparation for drug
examination, tell us who delivered the request as well as the accompanying
specimen to the Crime Laboratory.
A: My
entrusted co-police officer in the investigation section, Sir.[14]
XXX
Atty. Mendoza
Q: Mr.
Witness, when you conducted the said buy bust operation and you told this
Honorable Court that you were near with the poseur buyer, what happened Mr.
Witness?
A: I
have seen the transaction Sir while they were talking and when our civilian
asset was able to buy.
XXX
Q: What
exactly Mr. Witness if you have said any?
A: When
we arrived there, our civilian asset told that he will buy.
Q: Can
you tell this Honorable Court the phrase that the poseur buyer told the
accused?
A: He
said that iiscore daw siya.
Q: And
what will be the response if the person allegedly selling?
A: Magkano?
Q: Then
what is the reply?
A: ₱200.00
Q: And
then what happened?
A: Our
asset immediately gave her the money.
Court
Q: How
about the seller, what did she do after the money was paid to her?
A: After
giving the money, she took from her pocket 4 sachets and gave it to our asset.[15]
As shown by the above-quoted
testimony, SPO4 Taruc, as the poseur- buyer, was able to positively identify
the seller. He categorically stated that it was Arriola who dealt with their
civilian asset who was just beside him. According to him, Arriola was the one
who asked Magkano? when their civilian asset told her that Iiscore daw siya,
referring to SPO4 Taruc. She was the one who handed the 4 heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachets with white crystalline substance to the civilian
asset, which later on tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride
or shabu, in exchange of the ₱200.00 that she received as payment.
He was also able to identify the marked money with serial numbers LE627251 and
FP609605 both bearing the initials AT as well as the sachets with initials
AT and FA that contained the shabu. Clearly, the exchange of the buy-bust
money and the four (4) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets of shabu established
the fact that Arriola was, without a doubt, engaged in the sale of illegal drugs.
Regarding the second issue, Arriola
is of the position that there was no proof that the alleged confiscated shabu
was taken from her. She adds that there was violation of the chain of custody
on the part of the buy-bust team. Specifically, she claims that SPO4 Taruc did
not explain how the corpus delicti transferred hands from the time it
was supposedly confiscated from her to the time it was presented in court as
evidence.[16]
In the prosecution of drug related
cases, it is of paramount importance that the existence of the drug, the corpus delicti of the crime, be
established beyond doubt. Its existence is a condition sine qua non. It is precisely in this regard that central to this
requirement is the question of whether the drug submitted for laboratory
examination and presented in court was actually the one that was seized from or
sold by Arriola.[17] As
such, the chain of custody rule has been adopted in order to address this core
issue.
Black's Law Dictionary
explains chain of custody in this wise:
In evidence, the one who offers real
evidence, such as the narcotics in a trial of drug case, must account for the
custody of the evidence from the moment in which it reaches his custody until
the moment in which it is offered in evidence, and such evidence goes to weight
not to admissibility of evidence. Com. v. White, 353
Likewise, Section 1(b) of
Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 which implements R.A.
No. 9165 defines chain of custody as follows:
"Chain of Custody" means the
duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled
chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each
stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic
laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record
of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and
signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date
and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping
and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition[.]
Instructive in this issue is the case
of Malilin v. People[18]
which discussed how the chain of custody of the seized items should be established.
In said case, the Court said:
As a method of authenticating evidence,
the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded
by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what
the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in
the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered
into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would
describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to
it while in the witness possession, the condition in which it was received and
the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These
witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had
been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not
in the chain to have possession of the same.
Further, in the case of People v. Kamad,[19]
the Court enumerated therein the different links that the prosecution must endeavor
to establish with respect to the chain of custody in a buy-bust operation,
namely: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal
drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the
turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the
investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer
of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth,
the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic
chemist to the court.
Bearing in mind the abovementioned
guidelines in the application of the chain of custody rule, the prosecution in
the present case adequately proved all the links in the chain. This could be
deduced from the testimony of their lone witness, SPO4 Taruc. Pertinent portions
of his testimony are hereafter quoted, to wit:
Q: You
said you arrested her, what did you do upon the arrest of Flordeliza?
A: After
I have arrested her, I brought her to our police station and marked the
evidence with my initials and prepared the request for the laboratory
examination for me to bring the items for examination.
Q: What
happened to the 4 sachets handed to by Flordeliza to your asset?
A: I
marked them with my initials to prepare the request to be brought to the crime
laboratory.
Fiscal
Q: Will
you be able to identify those 4 sachets [since] you were the one who saw the
transaction and [was] the one who prepared the request for laboratory
examination?
A:
Yes, Sir.
Q: Why?
A: I
placed my initial and the initial of Flordeliza Arriola.
Q: Where
were you at the time you placed your initials?
A:
She was there at the investigating room, Sir.
Fiscal
I am showing to you 4 sachets; please
identify the relevance of these 4 sachets to one you referred earlier as the
subject of [the] transaction between your asset and Flordeliza.
A: These
are the items bought from her and in fact here are the initials I placed.
Sachet with initials AT and FA 1, 2, 3, 4.
Q: The brown envelope on which these 4 sachets was placed were
already marked as Exh. C. And the medium size transparent plastic sachet as
Exh. C-1. The 4 sachets in which shabu were placed were previously marked as
Exh. C-2, 3, 4, 5[20]
XXX
Fiscal
You mentioned of the preparation for drug
examination, tell us after the preparation, who delivered the request as well
as the accompanying specimen to the Crime Laboratory?
A: My
trusted co-police officer in the investigation section, Sir.
Fiscal
I am showing to you the request for
laboratory examination dated
A: Yes,
Sir.[21]
XXX
ATTY.
Afterwards you immediately brought her to
the police station?
A: Yes,
Sir.
Q: In
the police [station] what happened next?
A: The
statement was taken then at our office and we learned that her full name is
Flordeliza Arriola.
Q: Did
you bring this case [to] the investigator?
A: Yes,
Sir
Q: Together
with the shabu?
A: Yes,
Sir.
Q: From
the scene of the crime or from the house of the accused, upon arriving at the
police station did you immediately turn over the accused and the drug to the
police investigator?
A: Yes,
Sir.
ATTY.
When you arrived [at] the police station,
did you immediately turn over the accused and the drug to the investigator?
A: Before
I turned them over Sir, I arranged the evidence and put my marking on it.
Q: So,
you only put your marking only when you were at the police station?
A: Yes
sir in the presence of the accused.
Q: From
the time that you received the said alleged shabu or drugs from your asset,
where did you put the drugs?
A: In
my hand.
ATTY.
Up to the police station?
A: Yes,
Sir.
Q: Who
[accompanied] the accused when she [was] brought to the police station?
A: Me
and my back-up.
Q: Mr.
Witness, who brought the alleged shabu to the crime lab?
A: I
am not sure but it is our investigator Sir.[22]
For the first link, SPO4 Taruc
testified that after the buy-bust, the civilian asset turned over the sachets
to him. From the site, he brought Arriola and the sachets to their police
station where he marked the items. He marked the evidence with his initials and
the initials of Arriola and all these were done in her presence. As to the
second link, he told the court that after he put his markings on the seized
items, he turned them over, together with Arriola, to the investigating
officer. With respect to the third link, SPO4 Taruc said that the person who
brought the specimen to the crime laboratory for examination was his trusted co-police
in the investigating section. Forensic chemist, P/Insp. Sta. Maria, examined the
specimens submitted to him which tested positive for shabu and issued a chemistry report[23]
dated
The position of Arriola that the
prosecution failed to discuss in detail the different links in the chain as to
the transfer of hands of the evidence will not necessarily render said evidence
to be incompetent to convict Arriola for the crime of sale of illegal drugs. It
must be remembered that testimony about a perfect chain is not always the
standard as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.[24]
As such, what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and
the evidentiary value of the seized items.[25] 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. Besides,
all that Arriola did in her supplemental brief was make a general allegation
that prosecution failed to observe the chain of custody rule without pinpointing
the exact link or links that may have been compromised to bring doubt to the
integrity of the evidence.
So, in this case, Arriola has the
burden to show 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.[26]
Resultantly, since she failed to discharge such burden, it cannot be disputed
that the drugs seized from her 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.[27]
Finally, Arriola raised the issue of
the prosecutions non-compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of R.A.
No. 9165, particularly the fact that the buy-bust operation was conducted
without the proper coordination or clearance with the PDEA or with the barangay
authorities of the place where the operation was made. This supposition is
misguided.
In the case of People v. Roa,[28]
the Court explained that the requirement of coordination with the PDEA with
respect to a buy-bust operation is not indispensable. In said case, it said:
In the first place,
coordination with the PDEA is not an indispensable requirement before police
authorities may carry out a buy-bust operation. While it is true that Section
86 of Republic Act No. 9165 requires the National Bureau of Investigation, PNP
and the Bureau of Customs to maintain "close coordination with the PDEA on
all drug-related matters," the provision does not, by so saying, make
PDEA's participation a condition sine qua non for every
buy-bust operation. After all, a buy-bust is just a form of an in flagrante arrest
sanctioned by Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of the Court, which police
authorities may rightfully resort to in apprehending violators of Republic Act
No. 9165 in support of the PDEA. A buy-bust operation is not invalidated by
mere non-coordination with the PDEA.
WHEREFORE, the August 14, 2008 Decision of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R.
CR-HC. NO. 02870 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
JOSE
CATRAL
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairperson
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA ROBERTO
A. ABAD
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ESTELA M.
PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
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 Courts Division.
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairperson,
Third Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution and the Division Chairpersons 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 Courts Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-12. Penned by Associate Justice Isaias Dicdican and concurred in by Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison.
[2] Records, pp. 154-164. Penned by Judge Albert R. Fonacier.
[3] In Criminal Case No. 3503-M-2002.
[4] Records, p. 2.
[5]
[6] G.R. No.
171019,
[7] 384 Phil. 70, 93 (2000).
[8] People
v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 177324,
[9] People
v. Del Monte, G.R. No. 179940,
[10] G.R.
No. 185166,
[11] TSN,
[12] People
v. Naelga, G.R. No. 171018,
[13] People v. Mala, 458 Phil. 180, 190 (2003).
[14] TSN,
[15] TSN,
[16] Rollo, p. 52.
[17] People v. Kimura, 471 Phil. 895, 909 (2004).
[18] G.R.
No. 172953,
[19] G.R.
No. 174198,
[20] TSN,
[21]
[22] TSN,
[23] Records , p. 6.
[24] People
v. Quiamanlon, G.R. No. 191198,
[25]
[26] People v. Castro, G.R. No. 194836, June 15, 2011, citing People v. Ventura, G.R. No. 184957, October 27, 2009, 604 SCRA 543, 562.
[27]
[28] G.R. No. 186134,