People of the Philippines vs. Ryan Maralit y Casilang

SECOND DIVISION

August 1, 2018

G.R. No. 232381

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. RYAN MARALIT y CASILANG, Accused-Appellant

DECISION

REYES, JR., J.:

This is an appeal1 from the Decision2 dated December 22, 2016 of the Court of Appeals (CA) rendered in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06464, which affirmed the Judgment3 dated October 16, 2013 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Agoo, La Union. In these decisions, accused Ryan Maralit y Casilang (Maralit) was found guilty of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehen.3ive Dangerous Drugs Act.

Factual Antecedents

Maralit was charged with the offense of illegal trade, transport, and delivery of dangerous drugs, punishable under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The Information against him was docketed as Criminal Case No. A-6046, which reads:

Criminal Case No. A-6046

That on or about the 19th day of July 2011, in the Municipality of Sto. Tomas, Province of La Union, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and knowingly, trade, transport, deliver and give away two (2) bricks of marijuana to IOI EFREN L. ESMIN with a total weight of ONE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED FIFTY-NINE POINT NINETY-SEVEN (1,859. 97) grams, a dangerous and prohibited drug, without any authority of law.

Contrary to the provision of Section 5, Art. II of R.A. 9165.4

During the arraignment on August 17, 2011, the charge against Maralit was read to him in the Pangasinan dialect, a language he knew and understood. Maralit, with the assistance of his counsel, pleaded not guilty to the offense.5

The prosecution alleged that on July 19, 2011, IA3 Dexter B. Asayco (IA3 Asayco ), the team leader of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency-La Union Special Enforcement Team (PDEA-LUSET), received information from a confidential informant that an individual known as "RAM," who comes from Dagupan City, Pangasinan, was a known dealer of marijuana.6 The confidential informant described "RAM" as 5' 11" in height, with an athletic built.7

Following his receipt of this information, IA3 Asayco called for a briefing at around 9:00 a.m. regarding a planned entrapment operation against "RAM" later in the day.8 Soon after, at 9:15 a.m., IA3 Asayco coordinated with the team leader of the La Union Provincial Anti-Illegal Drug Special Operation Task Group (PAIDSOTG), Police Chief Inspector Erwin Dayag (PCI Dayag). In response, PCI Dayag instructed a member of his team, Police Officer 2 Froilan D. Caalim (PO2 Caalim), to proceed to the PDEA office for the briefing.9

During the briefing, IA3 Asayco informed his team that the confidential informant gave "RAM" the cellphone number of the PDEA-LUSET, under the guise of an interested buyer of marijuana from Tarlac. "RAM," in several text messages, introduced himself as the cousin of the confidential informant and informed them that he had two (2) bricks of dried marijuana he can deliver to an interested buyer. 10

IA3 Asayco then passed the cellphone to IOI Efren L. Esmin (IOI Esmin), a member of his team, and tasked him to make arrangements with "RAM" for the delivery of the marijuana. IO1 Esmin exchanged text messages with "RAM," and thereafter, "RAM" agreed to deliver the two (2) bricks of marijuana for Php 5,300.00 each (or an aggregate amount of Php 10,600.00). They also agreed to meet at Barangay Damortis, Sto. Tomas, La Union at 6:00 p.m. that day, to complete the transaction.11

IO1 Esmin and PO2 Caalim were designated as the arresting officers, while the rest of the team were tasked to secure the area.12 The briefing ended at around 12:00 noon, and after about an hour, the team proceeded to Sto. Tomas, La Union Police Station using a private vehicle. The team arrived at the police station at around 2:30 p.m., where they passed the time before the designated meeting time with "RAM."13

The team left the police station at around 4:30 p.m. and arrived at the target area by 5:00 p.m. Upon their arrival, the members of the team surveyed the area and positioned themselves according to the plan.14 At about 5:30 p.m., IO1 Esmin received a text message from "RAM" telling him that he was on his way aboard a bus, and identified a certain store as their meeting place. IO1 Esmin then waited for "RAM" outside the said store, while PO2 Caalim positioned himself across the street.15

At around 6:30 p.m., a man that matched the physical description of "RAM" approached IO1 Esmin. The man was holding a brown paper bag and he asked IO1 Esmin to confirm that he was the man from Tarlac. When IO1 Esmin answered in the affirmative, the man handed over the brown paper bag to him. IO1 Esmin opened the brown paper bag and inspected the contents. He found a white plastic bag inside the brown paper bag, which when opened, revealed two (2) bricks of marijuana.16

When IO1 Esmin found that the brown paper bag contained substances suspected to be marijuana, he arrested the man later identified as accused Maralit, and informed him of his constitutional rights.17 In the meantime, the other team members contacted two (2) barangay officials and a media representative to witness the marking and inventory of the illegal drugs. They were unable to obtain the presence of a Department of Justice (DOJ) representative allegedly because the entrapment operation ended after office hours, and there was no available DOJ representative beyond this time.18 IO1 Esmin then frisked Maralit for dangerous weapons and discovered a cellphone in his person. They did not find any messages or a SIM card on the cellphone.19

The barangay officials and the media representative arrived at the scene about ten minutes after Maralit's arrest. IOI Esmin proceeded to mark the evidence in the presence of the barangay officials, the media representative, and Maralit. The brown paper bag was marked as "A," the white plastic bag containing the two (2) bricks of marijuana was marked as "A-I " the bricks of marijuana were marked as "A-2" and "A-3" respectively, and the cellphone was marked as "B." Each item was also marked with IO1 Esmin's initials ("ELE''), the date ("19 July 2011"), and IO1 Esmin's signature.20

After the marking, IO1 Esmin made an inventory of the seized items.21 Photographs of the marking and inventory were also taken.22

The team took Maralit and the seized items to the PDEA Regional Office I in Camp Diego Silang, Carlatan, San Fernando City, La Union.23 IO1 Esmin then prepared the Booking Sheet and Arrest Report,24 as well as the Request for Laboratory Examination.25 The Request for Laboratory Examination was signed by IA3 Asayco, and later on delivered by IOI Esmin to Lei-Yen Valdez (Valdez) of the PDEA Regional Office i Laboratory at 7:30 p.m. of the same day.26

The chemistry report yielded a positive result for the presence of marijuana in the specimen samples taken from the pieces of evidence marked as "A-2" and "A-3."27

After the presentation and offer of the prosecution's evidence, Maralit filed a Demurrer to Evidence on June 13, 2013. He alleged that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient to find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. Particularly, Maralit pointed out that the money used for the entrapment operation was not even marked or presented before the trial court, which negates the presence of a consideration for the sale of the subject drugs-an essential element of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.28 He also argued that the absence of the DOJ representative during the marking and inventory of the seized items casts doubt on their identity and integrity, which warrants his acquittal.29 The prosecution objected to the Demurrer to Evidence.30

In an Order31 dated July 23, 2013, the RTC denied Maralit's Demurrer to Evidence for lack of merit. The trial court further ruled that since the demurrer was filed without leave of court, Maralit was deemed to have waived the right to present his evidence and the case was submitted for decision.32

Ruling of the RTC

In the Judgment33 dated October 16, 2013 of the RTC, Maralit was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, thus:

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, this Court finds accused [MARALIT] GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of violation of Section 5 of [R.A.] No. 9165 and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, the accused shall be credited in the service of his sentence with his preventive imprisonment under the terms and conditions set forth by Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code and to pay a fine of five hundred thousand pesos (Php500,000.00).

The items subject of the case, particularly the two (2) bricks of marijuana with a total weight of 1,859.97 grams shall be forfeited in favor of the government and shall be destroyed in accordance with law.

Agoo, La Union, October 16, 2013.34

The trial court ruled that it was unnecessary for the prosecution to present the money used for the entrapment operation. ' The RTC further found that the chain of custody was sufficiently established despite the absence of a DOJ representative during the marking of the seized pieces of evidence. Thus, the integrity and evidentiary value of the illegal drugs taken from Maralit were preserved.35

Aggrieved, Maralit filed a Notice of Appeal with the RTC on October 23, 2013.36 The RTC granted the appeal in its Order37 dated October 29, 2013.

In his brief, Maralit alleged that the trial court erred in finding him guilty of the offense charged against him, considering that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. According to Maral it, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were contrary to the common experience and observation of mankind, especially pointing out the absence of a consideration for the alleged purchase of the seized marijuana bricks.38 Maralit further assailed the inconsistencies in the testimony of IOl Esmin and the documentary evidence of the prosecution,39 as well as the failure of the PDEA officers to comply with the chain of custody rule.40

The People, on the other hand, argued that there was sufficient proof to establish Maralit's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. According to the prosecution, it was unnecessary to present the marked money used for the entrapment operation. Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 punishes the mere act of delivering dangerous drugs, even without a consideration. The People also refuted the argument of Maralit regarding the break in the chain of custody, and pointed out that by virtue of his admissions in the RTC, the integrity of the seized illegal drugs was preserved.41

Ruling of the CA

In a Decision42 dated December 22, 2016, the CA denied the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the RTC, thus:

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated October 16, 2013 of the [RTC], Branch 32 of Agoo, La Union in Criminal Case No. A-6046 is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.43

The CA found that the prosecution sufficiently established the chain of custody of the illegal drugs. The inconsistency as to the time stated by IO1 Esmin in his testimony and the time reflected in the Request for Laboratory Examination, was deemed a trivial matter that does not affect the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drugs.44 Considering that IO1 Esmin was the only person in custody of the seized items until it wa3 turned over to the forensic chemist for examination, the CA ruled that the chain of custody was adequately established.45

Unsatisfied with the decision of the CA, Maralit appealed his conviction to the Court.46 The CA gave due course to the appeal in its Resolution47 dated January 25, 2017.

Ruling of the Court

The issue presented before the Court is whether the guilt of Maralit was proven beyond reasonable doubt. For purposes of resolving this issue, the Court must review whether the identity and the integrity of the seized illegal drugs-the corpus delicti of this case-were duly preserved.

There being no evidence that the chain of custody over the illegal drugs was broken, the Court finds that the guilt of the accused was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court denies the present appeal.

A conviction for violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 does not always require the presentation of the marked money.

The Information against Maralit charged him with the violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. It further alleged that Maralit "willfully, unlawfully[,] and knowingly trade[d], transport[ed], deliver[ed] and [gave] away two (2) bricks of marijuana" to IO1 Esmin.48 Maralit alleged that in order to be convicted under this provision, the prosecution should have established the consideration for his supposed sale of the marijuana bricks.49

While an accused charged with the violation of this provision is usually caught in the act of selling illegal drugs, Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 also punishes the trade, delivery, distribution, and giving away of any dangerous drug to another. Section 3, Article I of R.A. No. 9165 defines the punishable acts of "deliver" and "trading" as follows:

(k) Deliver. - Any act of knowingly passing a dangerous drug to another, personally or otherwise, and by any means, with or without consideration.

x x x x

(jj) Trading. - Transactions involving the illegal trafficking of dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals using electronic devices such as, but not limited to, text messages, email, mobile or landlines, two-way radios, internet, instant messengers and chat rooms or acting as a broker in any of such transactions whether for money or any other consideration in violation of this Act. (Emphasis and underscoring Ours)

Clearly, the presence (or absence) of consideration in exchange for the delivery of dangerous drugs is not material when an accused is charged with committing the other acts punishable under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The act of giving away, transporting, or delivering the two (2) brick5 of marijuana is already a punishable act in itself.50

In People v. De la Cruz,51 the Court held that the presentation of the marked money, as well as the fact that the money was paid in exchange for the delivery of dangerous drugs, were unnecessary to consummate the crime, thus:

[E]ven if the money given to De la Cruz was not presented in court, the same would not militate against the People's case. In fact, there was even no need to prove that the marked money was handed to the appellants in payment of the goods. The crime could have been consummated by the mere delivery of the prohibited drugs. What the law proscribes is not only the act of selling but also, albeit not limited to, the act of delivering. In the latter case, the act of knowingly passing a dangerous drug to another personally or otherwise, and by any means, with or without consideration, consummates the offense.52 (Emphasis Ours)

As applied in the present case, the prosecution correctly charged Maralit with the violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. Maralit could not be accused of the illegal sale of dangerous drugs because the transaction was not consummated prior to his arrest-there being no money taken in return for the marijuana bricks. This notwithstanding, his mere act of delivering and conveying these marijuana bricks to IO1 Esmin already constitutes a violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.

It was therefore unnecessary for the prosecution to present the money used in the entrapment operation in order to prove Maralit's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In the same manner, neither may Maralit disprove the fact of delivery by simply pointing out that there was no consideration received in exchange for the dangerous drugs.

The prosecution was able to establish an unbroken chain of custody.

In any case, the prosecution still bore the burden of proving the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti, which in this case is the seized bricks of marijuana. This is accomplished by proving an unbroken chain of custody, to ensure that the items presented before the trial court are the same items taken from the accused. The chain of custody rule thus serves as a mode of authenticating evidence that removes doubts regarding the identity of the evidence presented in court.53

In People v. Kamad,54 the Court identified the following links in the chain of custody, which the prosecution should establish:

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 from the forensic chemist to the court.55

Each link is discussed sequentially to determine whether the prosecution was able to discharge its burden of proving the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti in this case.

The First Link: the seizure, marking, and inventory of the illegal drugs taken from Mara/it.

Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165 provides the procedure for the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized, or surrendered dangerous drugs.56 This provision specifically requires the apprehending officers to immediately conduct a physical inventory and to photograph the seized items in the presence of the following: (a) the accused or the person from whom the items were confiscated, or his representative or counsel; (b) a representative from the media; (c) a representative from the DOJ; and (d) any elected public official. They should also sign the inventory and be furnished a copy thereof.

Here, it is evident from the records that the marking and inventory of the two (2) bricks of marijuana were immediately conducted at the place of the arrest, soon after these items were taken from Maralit. Between Maralit's arrest and the marking of the items, only ten (10) minutes passed, which the prosecution adequately justified as the time spent by the apprehending team waiting for the arrival of the witnesses to the marking and inventory.57

Furthermore, during the marking and inventory of the seized items, there were two (2) barangay officials and one (1) media representative present. While there was no DOJ representative to witness the marking and inventory, IO1 Esmin and PO2 Caalim explained that they were no longer able to contact a representative from the DOJ because by the time they were finished with the entrapment operation, it was beyond office hours.58

The Court does not lose sight of the fact that under various field conditions, compliance with the requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 may not always be possible.59 Thus, while the presence of all these witnesses are ordinarily required, non-compliance is excusable when the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. There should also be proper justification for the arresting officers' failure to comply with the procedure under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.60

Considering that the police officers explained the absence of the DOJ representative, coupled with the fact that they endeavored to comply with the mandatory procedure by securing the presence of elected officials and a representative from the media, their failure to strictly observe Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is not fatal to the case. The integrity and evidentiary value of the seized evidence were nonetheless preserved because there were other witnesses to the marking and inventory of the seized bricks of marijuana. Two (2) barangay officials and a representative from the media were present during this stage, photographs were taken, and an inventory signed by these witnesses was prepared.61 Furthermore, while the inventory does not bear the signature of Maralit, the photographs show that Maralit was present during the marking and inventory of the seized items.62

Notably, the subsequent amendment of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 requires only an elected public official, and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media, to witness the marking and physical inventory of the seized items.63 The Court also explained in Lescano v. People64 that the media representative may witness the marking and inventory as an alternative to a DOJ representative:

Moreover, Section 21(1) requires at least three (3) persons to be present during the physical inventory and photographing. These persons are: first, the accused or the person/s from whom the items were seized; second, an elected public official; and third, a representative of the National Prosecution Service. There are, however, alternatives to the first and the third. As to the first (i.e., the accused or the person/s from whom items were seized), there are two (2) alternatives: first, his or her representative; and second, his or her counsel. As to the representative of the National Prosecution Service, a representative of the media may be present in his or her place.65 (Emphasis Ours)

Verily, the presence of the other witnesses, the immediate marking and inventory conducted after Maralit's arrest, and the photographs taken during that time, all attest to the identity and integrity of the seized dangerous drugs. Therefore, the first link in the chain of custody was sufficiently established in this case.

The Second and Third Links: the turnover of the seized drugs by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer, and in turn, to the forensic chemist.

The second and third links in the chain of custody refer respectively to the turnover of the seized drugs by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer, and subsequently, by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist for examination. In this case, IO1 Esmin was the sole custodian of the seized items from the time Maralit was arrested, to the moment they returned to their office, and until such time that he turned it over to the forensic chemist:

Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Gaudencio G. Valdez, Jr.: Now from the place where you arrested [RAM], where did you bring these items identified as brown paper bag, sando bag and two (2) bricks?

IO1 Esmin:

In our office, sir.

Q: Who was in possession of these items going to your office at the PDEA, San Fernando City, La Union?

A: Myself, sir.

Q: Was there anybody who took hold of these items on your way to your office?

A: None, sir.

Q: Okey (sic). How about [RAM], where did you bring this person?

A: Also at our office, sir.

Q: While at your office, what did you do to [RAM] inorder (sic) to identify him?

A: We conducted booking sheet, sir (sic).

Q: And, what's the real name of [RAM] that you come to know when you conduct this what we call now as booking sheet and arrest report?

A: Ryan Maralit y Casilang, sir.

Q: From what place did he come from?

A: From Barangay Pantal, Dagupan City, Pangasinan sir.

Q: What other documents did you prepare relative to the arrest of alyas [RAM] (sic)?

A: Laboratory request, sir for the marijuana.

Q: What else?

A: The request for physical examination sir of Ryan Maralit, sir.

Q: Now, the time that you were already at the PDEA office, who took custody of the bricks of marijuana, the paper bag and the sando bag?

A: Mine, sir (sic).

Q: Now, where did you bring the request for laboratory examination?

A: To the Chemist, we went to the PNP, Crime Laboratory, sir.

Q: Who was your chemist at the time?

A: Ms. Lei-Yen Valdez, sir.

Q: Now, from your possession of these items particularly of the paper bag, the two (2) bricks and the sando bag, to whom did you now give possession or pass possession of these items?

A: To our chemist, sir.

Q: Do you have any evidence to show to the Honorable Court that from your possession you handed or turned-over the possession of these items to your chemist Lei-Yen Valdez?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: What' is that?

A: The request, we put the time.

Q: I am showing you back the request for laboratory examination, could you point us to that portion of the request that will prove that indeed there was this turn-over of the items to be examined from your possession to the possession of your chemist?

A: Yes, sir I am the one who delivered to our chemist, sir.

Q: And, who received it?

A: Ms. Lei-Yen Valdez, sir.66

PO2 Caalim, a member of the apprehending team, corroborated the testimony of 101 Esmin.67 The documentary evidence likewise indicates that IO1 Esmin delivered the Request for Laboratory Examination to Valdez in the evening of July 19, 2011.68 Thus, the prosecution was able to establish that 101 Esmin had custody of the drugs seized from Maralit from the time of his arrest, during their transit from the place of arrest to the PDEA office, and from the PDEA office until it was submitted to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory.

The Fourth Link: the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drugs from the forensic chemist to the court.

For purposes of establishing the fourth link in the chain of custody, several matters were submitted for the admission of Maralit during trial. These include the fact that: (a) Valdez, the forensic chemist, personally received the Request for Laboratory Examination, together with the specimens enumerated in the request, from IO 1 Esmin;69 (b) samples from the specimens were examined for the presence of dangerous drugs, which was later confirmed as positive for marijuana;70 ( c) the specimens were taken from the two (2) bricks of marijuana marked as "A-2 ELE 19 July 2011" and "A-3 ELE 19 July 2011," both with signatures;71 and (d) the items duly described and marked were in the custody of the forensic chemist until these were submitted to the RTC.72

By virtue of these admissions, there is no question as to the fourth link in the chain of custody. In his own testimony, IO1 Esmin identified the items brought before the trial court as the same items he seized from Maralit. He was able to identify the items by virtue of the markings placed on the bricks of marijuana.73

Considering that the prosecution was able to satisfactorily establish an unbroken chain of custody, the integrity and evidentiary value of the illegal drugs taken from Maralit were preserved. A review of the records and the evidence presented reveal that the RTC and the CA did not overlook factual matters that would warrant the reversal of their decisions. The Court therefore affirms the CA's decision to uphold the conviction of Maralit.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated December 22, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06464, which found accused Ryan Maralit y Casilang guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, is AFFIRMED in all respects.

SO ORDERED.

ANDRES B. REYES, JR.Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ANTONIO T. CARPIOSenior Associate JusticeChairperson

ALFREDO BENJAMIN S. CAGUIOAAssociate Justice

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

Pursuant to the 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 Court's Division.

ANTONIO T. CARPIOSenior Associate Justice (Per Section 12, R.A. No. 296 The Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended)

Footnotes

1 Rollo, pp. 20-21.

2 Penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, with Associate Justices Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and Stephen C. Cruz concurring; id. at 2-19.

3 CA rollo, pp. 46-62.

4 Records, p. I.

5 Id. at 40.

6 Id. at 153.

7 TSN, October 24, 2011, p. 12.

8 Id. at 6.

9 Id. at 8; records, p. 153.

10 TSN, October 24, 2011, p. 10.

11 Id. at 11.

12 Id. at 12.

13 Id. at 13-14.

14 Id. at 14-16.

15 Id. at 17-18; TSN, November 28, 2011, p. 8; records, p. 164.

16 TSN, October 24, 2011, pp. 19-21.

17 Id. at 21.

18 Id. at 22-23.

19 Id. at 23-24.

20 Id. at 25, 33-36; records, pp. 155-156.

21 TSN, October 24, 2011, pp. 30-33.

22 Id. at 26.

23 Id. at 36-37.

24 Records, p. 159.

25 Id. at 162.

26 Id.

27 Id. at 163.

28 Id. at 167-168.

29 Id. at 169.

30 Id. at 172-176.

31 Id. at 177-178.

32 Id. at 178.

33 Id. at 187-203.

34 Id. at 203.

35 Id. at 200-202.

36 Id. at 205.

37 Id. at 208.

38 CA rollo, p. 37.

39 Id. at 39-40.

40 Id. at 40-42.

41 Id. at 81-86.

42 Id. at 95-112.

43 Id. at 112.

44 Id. at 104.

45 Id. at 105-111.

46 Id. at 116.

47 Id. at 123.

48 Records, p. 1.

49 Id. at 167; See also CA rollo, p. 37.

50 People v. Asislo, 778 Phil. 509, 519 (2016).

51 263 Phil. 340 (1990).

52 Id. at 350.

53 People of the Philippines v. Salim Ismael y Radang, G.R. No. 208093, February 20, 2017; See also Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576 (2008).

54 624 Phil. 289 (2010).

55 Id. at 304.

56 See Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165, Section 21 (a); See also PDEA Guidelines on the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 as Amended by R.A. No. 10640 (May 28, 2015).

57 TSN, October 24, 2011, p. 23.

58 Id. at 22-23; TSN, March 19, 2012, p. 8.

59 People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214, 234 (2008).

60 People of the Philippines v. Eddie Barte y Mendoza, G.R. No. 179749. March 1, 2017.

61 Records, pp. 155-158.

62 Id. at 157-158.

63 R.A. No. 10640 or AN ACT TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE ANTI-DRUG CAMPAIGN OF THE GOVERNMENT, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE "COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002," Section I. Approved on July 15, 2014.

64 778 Phil. 460 (2016).

65 Lescano v. People, id. at 475. See also PDEA Guidelines on the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 as Amended by Republic Act No. 10640, Section l(A.1.5). Approved on May 28, 2015.

66 TSN, October 24, 2011, pp. 36-40.

67 TSN, May 14, 2012, pp. 14-17.

68 Records, p. 162; Exhibit "M"

69 TSN, October 10, 2011, p. 4.

70 Id. at 5.

71 Id. at 11-12.

72 Id. at 18-19.

73 TSN, October 24, 2011, pp. 33-36.