Republic
of the
Supreme
Court
|
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus
- EMILY MENDOZA Y SARTIN, Accused-Appellant. |
G.R.
No. 189327
Present:
CORONA, C.J.,
Chairperson, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BERSAMIN, VILLARAMA, JR., and PERLAS-BERNABE,* JJ.
Promulgated: February 29, 2012 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D
E C I S I O N
LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, J.:
On appeal[1] is
the July 21, 2009 Decision[2] of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C.
No. 02725, which affirmed the Regional Trial Courts (RTC) March 20, 2007
Decision[3] in
Criminal Case No. 03-214163, wherein
accused-appellant Emily Mendoza y Sartin (Mendoza) was found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No.
9165,
or the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
On May 23, 2003,
Mendoza was charged before the RTC, Branch 23 of the City of Manila, of violating
Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.
The accusatory portion of the Information provides:
The
undersigned accuses EMILY MENDOZA Y SARTIN of a Violation of Section 5, of
Republic Act 9165, committed as follows:
That
on or about May 12, 2003, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused,
not being lawfully authorized by law to sell, trade, deliver or give away to
another any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
knowingly sell ZERO POINT ONE FIVE NINE (0.159) gram of white crystalline
substance commonly known as SHABU, containing methylamphetamine hydrochloride,
a dangerous drug.[4]
Mendoza pleaded
not guilty upon her arraignment[5]
on June 4, 2003.
On August 5,
2003, the pre-trial conference was terminated without any stipulations or
markings,[6]
as the parties jointly manifested that they will mark their respective
documentary and physical evidence during the course of the trial.[7] Thus, trial on the merits immediately
followed, with the prosecution calling as witness Police Inspector Judycel Macapagal
(Macapagal), the forensic chemist of the Western Police District (WPD), United Nations
Avenue, Manila, who examined the specimen, which is the subject matter of this
case.[8] Her testimony was dispensed with after the
defense admitted to the following:
1.
That Macapagal was an expert in the field
of science;[9]
2.
That there is a letter dated May 12, 2003,[10] requesting
for the laboratory examination of one heat-sealed small, transparent, plastic
sachet containing white crystalline substance, marked as SOG-1;
3.
That Macapagal, after examining the
contents of the plastic sachet, placed such sachet in a small brown envelope,
which she signed, dated, and sealed with a staple wire;
4.
That the contents of the plastic sachet,
as retrieved from the brown envelope, weighed 0.159 grams; and
5.
That a qualitative examination of the
white crystalline substance in the plastic sachet yielded positive for presence
of methylamphetamine hydrochloride, as shown in Chemistry Report No. D-1058-03,
issued by Macapagal.[11]
The prosecution
then presented their version of the events, as stated in the Affidavit of
Apprehension,[12]
which was executed by Police Inspector Israel Mangilit (Mangilit), Police
Officer (PO) 3 Randy Ching (Ching), and PO2 Gerardo Talusan; and testified to
by Mangilit[13]
and Ching,[14] summarized
as follows:
At around 12:20 p.m.
of May 12, 2003, the Special Operations Group (SOG) of the WPD, U.N. Avenue, Manila
received information from a confidential informant that one Emily Mendoza, a
pregnant woman, was selling shabu in Gagalangin,
Tondo, Manila. Acting on this information,
Mangilit immediately formed a buy-bust operation team, with Ching as the
poseur-buyer. Mangilit gave Ching a five-hundred-peso
(₱500.00) bill, the serial number of which was noted, to
be used as the buy-bust money. The team,
composed of Mangilit, Ching, and Talusan, together with the informant, first
coordinated with the Barangay Chairman
of Gagalangin, Tondo, before proceeding to Benita St., where Mendoza was to be
found. Mangilit and Talusan placed
themselves at a viewing distance, while Ching and the informant approached
Mendoza. The informant introduced Ching
to Mendoza as a buyer, and in return, Mendoza asked how much he would buy. After Ching told her that he would be buying ₱500.00 worth of shabu,
Mendoza handed him one plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. Ching then gave her the ₱500.00 bill, and executed the pre-arranged signal to
inform his team of the completed transaction.
Thereafter, the team read Mendoza her constitutional rights and the
nature of the accusation against her before arresting her. In the meantime, Ching marked the plastic
sachet he bought from Mendoza with SOG-1, while Talusan recovered the ₱500.00 bill from Mendozas coin purse. Afterwards, Ching brought the Request for
Laboratory Examination[15]
and the specimen to the chief of the WPD Crime Laboratory. The results of the laboratory examination, as
stated in Chemistry Report No. D-1058-03, and as testified to by Macapagal, are
as follows:
TIME
AND DATE RECEIVED: 1520H 12 May 2003
REQUESTING
PARTY/UNIT: Chief, CHISRU Branch
SOG=City
Hall, Manila
SPECIMEN
SUBMITTED:
A One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet
with marking SOG-1 containing 0.159 gram of white crystalline substance. x x x.
PURPOSE
OF LABORATORY EXAMINATION:
To determine the presence of dangerous drugs. x x x.
F
I N D I N G S :
Qualitative examination conducted on the
above-stated specimen gave POSITIVE result to the test for Methylamphetamine
hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. x x x.
C
O N C L U S I O N :
Specimen A contains Methylamphetamine hydrochloride,
a dangerous drug. x x x.
REMARKS:
TIME
AND DATE COMPLETED: 1720H 12 May
2003[16]
After the
prosecution rested its case, the defense presented Mendoza to refute and
disprove the material allegations made against her. Mendoza denied that she sold shabu to Ching. She alleged that she was in front of her
house, waiting for her aunt, when a man, whom she had never seen before, and
whom she had not seen during the trial, asked her about the owner of a video
game. She told the man that it was her
neighbor. The man inquired further about
the pusher of shabu, to which she
claimed lack of knowledge. The man then
asked if she could be invited to the precinct.
Mendoza said she asked the man why she was being invited, but the man
allegedly told her to just explain at the precinct. She tried to resist but the man reportedly
forced her to go with him to the SOG, Manila City Hall, via a sidecar. Upon reaching the police station, she was
subjected to an inquest when she refused to give the man fifty thousand pesos (₱50,000.00).[17]
On March 20,
2007, the RTC rendered its Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the court
hereby finds the accused, GUILTY, of
the crime charged against her, beyond reasonable doubt, and is hereby sentenced
to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred
Thousand Pesos (₱500,000.00).
The
shabu, subject of this case, is hereby forfeited in favor of the State and
ordered destroyed pursuant to
existing Rules.[18]
In convicting
Mendoza of violating Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, the RTC held that the
prosecution was able to establish and prove the elements in the sale of illegal
drugs. The RTC said that the
prosecutions version of the events was positive, probable, and in accord with
human experience.[19]
The RTC also applied the presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duties, as Mendoza failed to show
that Mangilit and Ching, in testifying against her, were motivated by reasons
other than the duty to curb the sale of dangerous drugs.[20]
Finally, the RTC averred that Mendozas
denial and cry of frame-up deserve no merit as not only was she unable to
present any sufficient evidence to support them, but they are also weak
defenses disfavored by this Court.[21]
On March 29,
2007, Mendoza filed her Notice of Appeal[22]
with the RTC. Mendoza anchored her
appeal on the following errors:
I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED
FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT.
II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN
GIVING FULL WEIGHT AND CREDENCE ON THE EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION AND
DISREGARDING ACCUSED-APPELLANTS DEFENSE.[23]
On July 21, 2009,
the Court of Appeals promulgated its Decision,
affirming the RTCs judgment of conviction, to wit:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
instant appeal is hereby DENIED. The assailed Decision dated March 20, 2007 of
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, Manila in Crim. Case No. 03-214163 is
hereby AFFIRMED.[24]
The Court of Appeals found
Mendozas appeal bereft of merit as the prosecution was able to establish the
elements of the charge against her. It deemed
as waived Mendozas argument that the police officers failed to establish the
identity of the corpus delicti as it
was raised for the first time on appeal.[25] The Court of Appeals further agreed with the
RTC that absent a showing of ill motive on the part of the police officers,
their testimonies deserve full faith and credit and the presumption that they
regularly performed their duties must be upheld.[26]
Undeterred,
Mendoza elevated her case to this Court, with the same issues she raised before
the Court of Appeals.[27]
Discussion
Mendoza was
charged and convicted for selling methylamphetamine hydrochloride, more
popularly known as shabu, in
violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Dangerous Drugs Law, which provides:
Section 5. Sale,
Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and
Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemicals. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging
from Five hundred thousand pesos (₱500,000.00)
to Ten million pesos (₱10,000,000.00) shall be
imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade,
administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in
transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium
poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker
in any of such transactions.
The penalty of imprisonment
ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine
ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (₱100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (₱500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who,
unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver,
give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any
controlled precursor and essential chemical, or shall act as a broker in such
transactions.
If the sale, trading,
administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution or transportation of any
dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical transpires
within one hundred (100) meters from the school, the maximum penalty shall be
imposed in every case.
For drug pushers who use
minors or mentally incapacitated individuals as runners, couriers and
messengers, or in any other capacity directly connected to the dangerous drugs
and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals trade, the maximum penalty
shall be imposed in every case.
If the victim of the offense
is a minor or a mentally incapacitated individual, or should a dangerous drug
and/or a controlled precursor and essential chemical involved in any offense
herein provided be the proximate cause of death of a victim thereof, the
maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed.
The maximum penalty
provided for under this Section shall be imposed upon any person who organizes,
manages or acts as a "financier" of any of the illegal activities
prescribed in this Section.
The penalty of twelve (12)
years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years of imprisonment and a fine ranging
from One hundred thousand pesos (₱100,000.00) to Five hundred
thousand pesos (₱500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who
acts as a "protector/coddler" of any violator of the provisions under
this Section.
Mendoza posits
that her guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt as the prosecution failed
to establish the identity of the dangerous drug with certainty. She claims that [t]he arresting officers [did
not] comply with the proper custody and disposition of the seized and
confiscated plastic sachet under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. Mendoza further argues that the prosecution
failed to prove how the seized drug reached the forensic chemist for examination. She also avers that the police officers did
not conduct any inventory or take pictures of the plastic sachet. [28] Moreover, Mendoza avers, no barangay official or representative from
the media was present during the buy-bust operation, and no coordination with
the PDEA, within the time specified in the rules, was done.[29]
Proof of corpus delicti
Section
21 of Republic Act No. 9165 reads as follows:
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:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody
and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation,
physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or
the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department
of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign
the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof[.]
Its Implementing Rules and Regulations state:
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 the evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid
such seizures of and custody over said items[.] (Emphasis supplied.)
This Court has,
in many cases, held that while the chain of custody should ideally be perfect,
in reality it is not, as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.[30] The most important factor is the preservation
of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items as they will be
used to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.[31] Hence, the prosecutions failure to submit in
evidence the physical inventory and photograph of the seized drugs as required
under Article 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, will not render Mendozas arrest
illegal or the items seized from her inadmissible.[32]
In the case at
bar, it was shown that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs
had been preserved. The prosecution had
submitted enough evidence to account for the crucial links in the chain of
custody of the seized shabu, starting
from its confiscation from Mendoza up to its presentation as evidence in the
RTC.
The records
would indicate that the plastic sachet containing shabu was marked, kept, and delivered to the forensic chemist by the
same officer who received it from Mendoza.
Ching, the poseur-buyer, marked the plastic sachet he bought from
Mendoza with SOG-1 after the buy-bust team arrested her. Thereafter, the marked plastic sachet, together
with the laboratory request, was delivered by Ching himself to Macapagal for
examination. Macapagals Chemistry
Report showed that she received a plastic sachet marked SOG-1 for examination
at around 3:20 p.m. After she completed
her examination at 5:20 p.m., she placed the same marked plastic sachet in a
small brown envelope, which she in turn dated, signed, and sealed with a staple
wire.
It is therefore
clear, that the prosecution was able to account for each link in the chain of
custody over the shabu, from the
moment it was seized from Mendoza, up to the time it was presented during the
trial as proof of the corpus delicti.
In any case,
unless Mendoza can show that there was bad faith, ill will, or tampering with
the evidence, the presumption that the integrity of the evidence has been
preserved will be upheld. It is upon
Mendoza to show the foregoing to overcome the presumption that the police
officers handled the seized drugs with regularity, and that they properly performed
their duties.[33] This burden, she failed to discharge.
Moreover, as the
Court of Appeals said, Mendoza only questioned the chain of custody when she
appealed her conviction. This issue was
neither raised nor mentioned during the trial before the RTC. Whatever justifiable ground may excuse the
prosecution from complying with the statutory requirements on chain of custody will
remain in obscurity but will not adversely affect the prosecutions case if not
timely questioned during the trial. In People v. Sta. Maria,[34]
the Court held:
The law excuses non-compliance under justifiable
grounds. However, whatever justifiable
grounds may excuse the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation in
this case from complying with Section 21 will remain unknown, because appellant
did not question during trial the safekeeping of the items seized from him. Indeed, the police officers alleged
violations of Sections 21 and 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 were not raised
before the trial court but were instead raised for the first time on appeal. In no instance did appellant least intimate at
the trial court that there were lapses in the safekeeping of seized items that
affected their integrity and evidentiary value. Objection to evidence cannot be
raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject
the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of objection. Without such objection he cannot raise the
question for the first time on appeal.[35]
It is also
worthy to note the fact that Mendoza has not ascribed any improper motive on
the part of the police officers as to why they would choose to implicate her in
a very serious crime. Mendoza herself
admitted that she had not seen any of the police officers who testified against
her prior to the trial. As the RTC
pronounced, she has not shown that Ching and Mangilit were motivated by reasons
other than their duty to curb the sale of prohibited drugs.[36] Thus, it is only right that until Mendoza can
show clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust operation
team were motivated illicitly, or had failed to properly perform their duties,
their testimonies deserve full faith and credit.[37]
Coordination
with PDEA
Mendoza likewise assails the legality of her arrest
as no coordination with PDEA was done.
Section 86 of the Dangerous Drugs Law states:
Section 86. Transfer, Absorption, and Integration of All
Operating Units on Illegal Drugs into the PDEA and Transitory Provisions. The Narcotics Group of the PNP, the Narcotics
Division of the NBI and the Customs Narcotics Interdiction Unit are hereby
abolished; however they shall continue with the performance of their task as
detail service with the PDEA, subject to screening, until such time that the
organizational structure of the Agency is fully operational and the number of
graduates of the PDEA Academy is sufficient to do the task themselves: Provided,
That such personnel who are affected shall have the option of either being
integrated into the PDEA or remain with their original mother agencies and
shall, thereafter, be immediately reassigned to other units therein by the head
of such agencies. Such personnel who are transferred, absorbed and integrated
in the PDEA shall be extended appointments to positions similar in rank,
salary, and other emoluments and privileges granted to their respective
positions in their original mother agencies.
Its Implementing
Rules and Regulations read:
SECTION
86. Transfer, Absorption, and Integration of All Operating Units on Illegal
Drugs into the PDEA and Transitory Provisions. The Narcotics Group of the
PNP, the Narcotics Division of the NBI and the Customs Narcotics Interdiction
Unit are hereby abolished, however, they shall continue with the performance of
their task as detail service with the PDEA, subject to screening, until such
time that the organizational structure of the Agency is fully operational and
the number of graduates of the PDEA Academy is sufficient to do the task
themselves: Provided, that such personnel who are affected shall have the
option of either being integrated into the PDEA or remain with their original mother
agencies and shall thereafter, be immediately reassigned to other units therein
by the head of such agencies. Such personnel who are transferred, absorbed and
integrated in the PDEA shall be extended appointments to positions similar in
rank, salary and other emoluments and privileges granted to their respective
positions in their original mother agencies.
The transfer, absorption and integration of the
different offices and units provided for in this Section shall take effect
within eighteen (18) months from the effectivity of the
Act: Provided, that personnel absorbed and on detail service shall be
given until five (5) years to finally decide to join the PDEA.
Nothing in the Act shall mean a diminution of the
investigative powers of the NBI and the PNP on all other crimes as provided for
in their respective organic laws: Provided, however, that when the
investigation being conducted by the NBI, the PNP or any ad hoc anti-drug task
force is found to be a violation of any of the provisions of the Act, the PDEA
shall be the lead agency. The NBI, the
PNP or any of the task force shall immediately transfer the same to the PDEA;
Provided, further, that the NBI, the PNP and the Bureau of Customs shall
maintain close coordination with the PDEA on all drug related matters.
(a) Relationship/Coordination
between PDEA and Other Agencies. The PDEA shall be the lead agency in the
enforcement of the Act, while the PNP, the NBI and other law enforcement
agencies shall continue to conduct anti-drug operations in support of the PDEA:
Provided, that the said agencies shall, as far as practicable, coordinate with
the PDEA prior to anti-drug operations; Provided, further, that, in any case,
said agencies shall inform the PDEA of their anti-drug operations within
twenty-four (24) hours from the time of the actual custody of the suspects or
seizure of said drugs and substances, as well as paraphernalia and transport
equipment used in illegal activities involving such drugs and/or substances,
and shall regularly update the PDEA on the status of the cases involving the
said anti-drug operations; Provided, furthermore, that raids, seizures, and
other anti-drug operations conducted by the PNP, the NBI, and other law
enforcement agencies prior to the approval of this IRR shall be valid and
authorized; Provided, finally, that nothing
in this IRR shall deprive the PNP, the NBI, other law enforcement personnel and
the personnel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) from effecting
lawful arrests and seizures in consonance with the provisions of Section 5,
Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. (Emphasis supplied.)
Lack of coordination with the PDEA will not
invalidate a buy-bust operation. This
Court has declared that coordination with the PDEA is not an indispensable
requirement in buy-bust operations.
Neither Section 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 nor its Implementing Rules
and Regulations make PDEAs participation a condition sine qua non for the conduct of a buy-bust operation, especially
since a buy-bust operation is merely a form of an in flagrante arrest, which is sanctioned by Section 5, Rule 113 of
the Rules of Court.[38]
Elements of Illegal Sale of
Dangerous Drugs
This Court has repeatedly held that the prosecution
of the sale of dangerous drugs case is dependent on the satisfaction of the
following elements:
(1) [T]he identity of the buyer and the seller, the
object, and the consideration; and
(2) [T]he delivery of the thing sold and the
payment therefor.[39]
Simply put, [w]hat is
material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof
that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation
in court of evidence of corpus
delicti.[40]
This
Court finds the prosecution to have established the foregoing elements.
A
review of the records would show that Ching, the poseur-buyer, made a positive
identification of Mendoza as the one who sold him the plastic sachet with white
crystalline substance and to whom he gave the buy-bust money to during the
entrapment operations. This was seconded
by Mangilit, who also positively identified Mendoza as the subject of their
buy-bust operation on May 12, 2003.
Mendozas weak defenses of denial and frame-up cannot prevail over such
positive identification.[41]
This
Court has invariably viewed the common and standard defenses of denial and
frame-up in drugs cases with disfavor for being easily concocted.[42]
For a police officer to frame her
up, he must have known her prior to the incident. However, the informant had to introduce Ching
to Mendoza before the sale of the shabu took place. Mendoza testified that she did not know Ching
or the other police officers prior to her arrest.[43] Moreover, Mendoza herself admitted that not
only should she be considered as part of the urban poor, but that she also had
no means of income. Her very
circumstance belies her claim that the police officers charged her with this
crime because she refused to pay the ₱50,000.00 they were allegedly extorting
from her. For such defenses to succeed,
they must be proven with strong and convincing evidence.[44] Mendoza has not given this Court anything
except her bare assertions.
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the Court hereby AFFIRMS the
July
21, 2009 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 02725.
SO ORDERED.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
Chief Justice
Chairperson
LUCAS P. BERSAMINAssociate Justice |
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE Associate Justice |
|
* Per Special Order No. 1207 dated February 23, 2012.
[1] Rollo, pp. 13-15.
[2] Id.
at 2-12; penned by Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. with Associate
Justices Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Antonio L. Villamor, concurring.
[3] CA rollo, pp. 11-17.
[4] Records,
p. 1.
[5] Id.
at 12.
[6] Id.
at 21.
[7] Id.
at 23.
[8] TSN,
August 5, 2003, p. 2.
[9] Id.
at 3.
[10] Records,
p. 85.
[11] TSN,
August 5, 2003, pp. 4-5.
[12] Records,
p. 8.
[13] TSN,
August 5, 2003, pp. 6-31.
[14] TSN,
November 6, 2004, pp. 2-21.
[15] Records,
p. 4.
[16] Id.
at 86.
[17] TSN,
November 23, 2006, pp. 2-7.
[18] CA
rollo, pp. 16-17.
[19] Id.
at 15.
[20] Id.
[21] Id.
at 16.
[22] Records,
p. 82.
[23] CA
rollo, p. 38A.
[24] Rollo, p. 12.
[25] Id.
at 6.
[26] Id.
at 10.
[27] Id.
at 25-27.
[28] CA
rollo, Appellants Brief, pp. 6-8.
[29] Id. at 11.
[30] Asiatico
v. People, G.R. No. 195005, September 12, 2011.
[31] People v.
Campomanes, G.R. No. 187741, August 9, 2010, 627 SCRA 494, 507.
[32] People v.
Concepcion, G.R. No. 178876, June 27, 2008, 556 SCRA 421,
436.
[33] People v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 184804, June 18, 2009, 589 SCRA
625, 647.
[34] G.R. No. 171019, February 23, 2007, 516 SCRA 621.
[35] Id.
at 633-634.
[36] People v.
Lee, 407 Phil. 250, 260 (2001).
[37] People v.
Valencia, 439 Phil. 561, 567 (2002).
[38] People
v. Roa, G.R. No.
186134, May 6, 2010, 620 SCRA 359, 368-369.
[39] People v.
Tiu, 469 Phil. 163, 173 (2004).
[40] People v. Andres, G.R. No. 193184,
February 7, 2011, 641 SCRA 602, 608.
[41] People v. Amansec, G.R. No. 186131,
December 14, 2011.
[42] People v. Bandang, G.R. No. 151314, June 3, 2004, 430 SCRA 570.
[43] Id.
at 589-590.
[44] People v. Lazaro, Jr., G.R. No. 186418, October 16, 2009, 604
SCRA 250, 269.