PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MILAN CABELTES Y TAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
BORJA, J.:
The Facts of the Case
The Information[2] dated November 12, 2004 alleged:
That on or about October 25, 2004 at more or less 7:45 p.m., at Chavez-Pabayo Streets, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to possess and violate the law, did then and there willfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control two (2) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, locally known as Shabu, a dangerous drug, with a combined weight of 0.23 gram, accused knowing the same to be a dangerous drug.
Contrary to Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.
Assisted by counsel, Cabeltes was duly arraigned on August 16, 2005 where he entered a plea of not guilty.[3]
Trial ensued.
The People’s version of the facts, as culled mainly from the joint affidavit of the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation; the testimonies on the witness stand by two of them, PO2 Reymund Seno and SPO1 Roberto Cambi; and the Chemistry Report of the Forensic Chemical Officer, then Senior Inspector April Carbajal-Madroño, is as follows:
For almost two weeks before October 25, 2004, police operatives had been closely monitoring the rampant illegal drug-selling activities going on at Barangay 5, Cagayan de Oro City, where most of the victims were minors.[4]
Around 7:45 p.m. of October 25, 2008, the police received a report made by a confidential informant that accused was selling prohibited drugs somewhere in Divisoria Area, Cagayan de Oro City. Immediately thereafter, the operatives formed a team composed of SPO1 Gerry Abella as the team leader, SPO1 Roberto Cambi, PO2 Terencio Virtudazo, PO2 Reymund Seno, SPO2 Edgar Villanueva, SPO1 Julius Roa, and PO2 Rhodora Sasil to conduct a buy-bust operation against accused, with PO2 Seno as the poseur-buyer.[5]
Upon reaching Room 234 of Nature’s Pensionne, located at Chavez-Pabayo Sts., Cagayan de Oro City, the poseur-buyer knocked on the door and told Cabeltes who was occupying the room that he wanted to buy P1,000-worth of shabu. The money, comprised of one P500 bill and five P100 bills, two of which were dusted with fluorescent powder and bearing serial numbers LR328578 and NA424739, exchanged hands. Cabeltes then handed the poseur-buyer a small heat-sealed transparent plastic containing white crystalline substance. That was when the poseur-buyer introduced himself as a policeman, elbowed the door to open it wider, as the other policemen who acted as backup rushed inside the room and arrested the accused.[6]
SPO1 Cambi then asked Cabeltes to place his hands above his head and was about to frisk the latter’s pockets when Cabeltes himself volunteered to empty his pockets of their contents. Four small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance came out of his front left pocket, and the buy-bust money amounting to P1,000.00 came out of his front right pocket. The team then inspected the premises and saw a pair of scissors, three disposable lighters, a used aluminum foil that is fairly crumpled, one vial, a pyrex test tube, and different sizes of repacking cellophane.[7]
PO2 Seno also testified that among the paraphernalia found in the room was an improvised tooter,[8] made of a spark plug rubber cap with a drinking straw attached to the bend of the cap, and a small whisky bottle with the straw serving as its connector.[9]
The team then brought accused to Maharlika, Cagayan de Oro City Jail and prepared him for booking at the station. The evidence seized were then inventoried and marked. The small heat-sealed transparent plastic containing white crystalline substance which was the object of the sale was then marked Exhibit “A.” The four sachets which came out from his front left pocket were then marked as Exhibits “B,” “B-1,” “B-2,” and “B-3” respectively. The five 100-peso bills and one 500-peso bill were also marked “H,” “H-1,” “H-2,” “H-3,” “H-4,” and H-5” respectively.[10]
Cabeltes was also tested for the presence of ultraviolet fluorescent powder which yielded a positive result. His urine sample likewise tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride.[11]
The testimony of Police Chief Inspector April Carbajal Madroño, the Forensic Chemical Officer at the time of the filing of the case, was dispensed with in an order dated June 19, 2006[12] on the ground that the defense already admitted the due execution of Chemistry Report No. D-493-2004, the document detailing the specimens submitted for examination and finding them positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. It appeared in the report that the specimens, especially the five small sachets containing white crystalline substances, brought for qualitative examination to the PNP crime laboratory tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.[13]
For his defense, Cabeltes interposed denial. His version of the facts pointed to being framed-up by his friend and the policemen. He alleged that on October 25, 2004, he was on his way home to Carmen, Cagayan de Oro City when he received a text message from a certain Yolly Lara, his friend who was a Guest Relations Officer, inviting him to go to her room at Nature’s Pensionne because she had a problem. Once at the pension house, Cabeltes then inquired at the front desk where the room of Lara was. He then went up to her room, knocked, and was beckoned inside. Lara then asked him to sit on the bed as she was about to leave the room to meet someone for a while. He then waited inside the room and stayed on the bed to watch TV.[14]
After about thirty minutes, someone was knocking at the door and he heard Lara calling to him so he got up to open the door and was surprised by the policeman who pushed him back inside the room. The police officers then went inside the room and handcuffed him. They then made a thorough search of the room without having shown him any search warrant, and Police Officer Seno kept interrogating him where he hid the shabu to which he insistently replied that there was none. Cabeltes added that the team of police did not recover anything from the room and that he first saw the sachet of shabu at Maharlika Station, as it was placed on the table and a picture was taken of it. He even manifested that the former judge handling the case even scolded the police upon knowing that the picture of the evidence was taken at their office and not at the crime scene.[15]
He also alleged that when he was at Maharlika, his wallet was taken. He had P5,000.00 inside it. The police took and marked the P1,000.00 and pocketed the P4,000.00. Then they brought him to the crime laboratory and forced him to urinate. He alleged he was given no lawyer the whole time he was at the police station.[16]
As documentary evidence, Cabeltes presented Exhibit “1,” a certification from the management of Nature’s Pensionne to the effect that Cabeltes was not a registered guest at the hotel on October 25, 2004.[17] Exhibit “2” was a copy of Sun Star, a local daily, dated August 18, 2010, as evidence of Cabeltes’s allegation that one of the arresting officers, PO2 Seno, was charged criminally and administratively by PDEA for alleged serious irregularities in the performance of official duties.[18] Cabeltes further stated that he believed the reason why the police, in particular Seno, Cambi, and Virtudazo were adamant in filing the case against him was because he was unable to heed their demand of P50,000.00 from him because he had no money at that time.[19]
By Judgment[20] dated August 11, 2011, the court a quo convicted Cabeltes of the crime charged. The dispositive portion read as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court hereby finds the accused MILAN TAN CABELTES, GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the offense defined and penalized under Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 as charged in the Information, and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for TWELVE [12] YEARS and ONE [1] DAY to THIRTEEN [13] YEARS and to pay the Fine of P300,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of non-payment of Fine. The period of his detention before he was granted bail shall be credited in full, for the purpose of service of his sentence.
xxx
SO ORDERED.[21]
His motion for reconsideration[22] having been denied,[23] accused now comes before this Court, alleging that the court a quo committed reversible error in –
I
PERMITTING THE PROSECUTION TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE NOT ALLEGED IN THE INFORMATION IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION;
II
ADMITTING EVIDENCE SEIZED FROM THE ACCUSED IN THE COURSE OF AN ILLEGAL BUY-BUST AND CONCOMITANT ILLEGAL ARREST AND UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE;
III
FAILING TO CONSIDER AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ILLEGAL THE FORCED ENTRANCE OF THE POLICE OFFICERS IN ROOM 234 OF NATURE’S PENSIONNE AND THEIR SUBSEQUENT SEARCH AND SEIZURE UPON ACCUSED OF THE DANGEROUS DRUG WHICH IS A FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE;
IV
…FAILING TO APPRECIATE THE BREAK IN THE CUSTODIAL CHAIN OF THE DANGEROUS DRUG, [GRANTING ARGUENDO THE VALIDITY OF THE ARREST, SEARCH AND SEIZURE]; and
V
IGNORING THE NON-COMPLIANCE [BY] THE POLICE OFFICERS OF THE STRICT AND MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS IN THE CONDUCT OF DRUG OPERATION SUCH AS SEIZURE, INVENTORY AND DELIVERY OF DANGEROUS DRUGS WHICH IS FATAL TO THE CAUSE OF THE PROSECUTION.[24]
It is accused-appellant’s contention that the conduct of the buy-bust operation was highly irregular and thus, the resultant arrest and search and seizure were unconstitutional. For one, the police operatives had no prior coordination with PDEA. Secondly, the designation of a police officer as a poseur-buyer was highly irregular, as it was usually the asset who was delegated as such. Finally, he is strong in his contention that what the police did was instigation,[25] which is an absolutory cause. The arrest and the consequent search and seizure being unconstitutional, it is his position that the evidence obtained thereto should have been inadmissible in court.[26]
He further avers that even granting arguendo that the arrest was valid, the prosecution had not established the corpus delicti. The mandatory requirements of inventory and photographing of the evidence “were not immediately undertaken” by the arresting officers. Moreover, SPO3 Villanueva was not even presented in court to identify the shabu turned over to him after having been recovered from Cabeltes. Therefore, he argues, the integrity of the evidence was not preserved.[27]
In the main, Cabeltes questions the manner of the search and seizure and insists that the evidence should not have been admitted against him for being “fruits of the poisonous tree.” Even assuming arguendo that the buy-bust operation was valid, the corpus delicti was not established, as the prosecution failed to prove that the evidentiary value of the seized drugs was preserved.
The Ruling of this Court
The appeal must fail.
This Court first addresses the issue of illegal arrest. Cabeltes capitalizes on the fact that the conduct of the buy-bust operation was not in coordination with the PDEA. In building up the second and third errors assigned, he argues that the policemen were bereft of authority to arrest him because they failed to secure detail orders from the PDEA, the main agency tasked to enforce the law.
This argument does not sit well with this Court. Jurisprudence has held that while PDEA is the lead agency tasked to enforce the anti-drugs law, it is not to be treated as the exclusive agency in enforcing the law.[28] In point of fact, the police operatives involved in this case were assigned at the Cagayan de Oro Drug Enforcement Unit, a Special Operation Unit of the Philippine National Police,[29] a special unit assigned to aid the government agencies tasked to implement the anti-drug laws. They cannot be said to have no authority in drug-bust operations. Moreover, this Court finds the testimony of SPO1 Cambi as corroborated in material respects by PO2 Seno as straightforward and worthy of credence. From the time they conducted surveillance at Barangay 5 and within the Divisoria Plaza area, Cagayan de Oro City, to the conduct of the buy-bust operation, the statements of the police officers were consistent and reliable.
Denial of the crime charged and allegations of a frame-up constitute the accused-appellant’s defense. Mere denial cannot overcome the positive testimony of police operatives whose regularity of official duties is presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary.[30] Accused wants to impress upon this Court that he was merely framed-up and subjected to extortion. This, however, remains a bare allegation. The newspaper clips attached which detailed the criminal and administrative cases filed against one of the police officers involved in the operation, PO2 Seno, pertained to another case and not in any way connected with the case at bench. This Court, therefore, declares that the issue of illegal arrest need not be discussed further. Consequently, a discussion on the issue of whether the evidence seized is “fruit of the poisonous tree” will no longer be useful.
Now we go to the main matter of this disquisition.
The elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs are: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.[31] To convict an accused, it is essential that all three elements must be proven, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti, a Latin term which means the body of the crime, or such evidence and facts required to prove that a crime has been committed. The case of People v. Roble[32] defines corpus delicti as “the actual commission by somebody of the particular crime charged.”
In prosecuting violations under R.A. 9165, the dangerous drug is the very corpus delicti of the crime, hence it is imperative that the prohibited drug offered in court as evidence is the very same substance seized from the accused, identified by the prosecution witnesses with unwavering exactitude. This is where the “chain of custody” rule comes in, to ensure that the integrity of the evidence is preserved.
“Chain of Custody,” a legal term that refers to the ability to guarantee the identity and integrity of the specimen from seizure or confiscation to the reporting of the test results, is a process used to maintain and document the chronological history of the specimen.[33] Instructs the Supreme Court in the case of People v. Lorena,[34] viz:
“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.
Jurisprudential rule abounds with fairly recent pronouncements that non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. 9165 on the custody and disposition of seized drugs, under justifiable grounds, will not necessarily result in the illegality of an accused’s arrest, or the inadmissibility of the items seized or confiscated from him, so long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officers having custody thereof.[35] In all these cases, the Supreme Court has emphasized that to convict, the prosecution has the burden of ensuring with unwavering exactitude that the evidence presented in court was the same evidence seized from the accused.
The first link
Accused-appellant harps on the fact that the apprehending officers did not follow the mandatory post-procedure in taking custody of seized drugs pursuant to Section 21, Article II of the IRR of R.A. 9165.[36] Said section provides that the apprehending officers “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 his 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.”
In the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, no mention about the marking of evidence and physical inventory of the seized drugs were made in the crime scene. In fact, in the cross-examination of prosecution witness SPO1 Cambi, he admitted that they did not take pictures of the seized substances in the hotel room, nor did they mark the same there.[37] In the case of People v. Alcuizar,[38] the Supreme Court has pronounced that the rule now allows marking of evidence to be done at the nearest police station in case of warrantless searches and seizures, as in this case. This apparent deviation, therefore, cannot render void such seizure of and custody over the seized items, for as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officers,[39] viz:
The failure to strictly comply with Section 21(1), Article II of RA 9165 does not necessarily render an accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as these would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[40] [Emphasis ours.]
In the fairly recent case of People v. Posing,[41] the Supreme Court has the same observation, viz:
But time and again, jurisprudence is consistent in stating that less than strict compliance with the procedural aspect of the chain of custody rule does not necessarily render the seized drug items inadmissible.
The second link
Anent the handling of the seized evidence, the prosecution witnesses corroborated each other in material respects. The following record of Stenographic Notes will illustrate this.
Prosecutor Borja to Witness Seno:
Q: I have here one sachet of shabu which you [bought]. Is this the one you bought from Milan Cabeltes?
A: Yes, this is the one that I bought from Milan Cabeltes.
Q: Why do you say this is the one that you bought from Milan Cabeltes?
A: I can identify the cellophane and the size, Sir.xxx
Court to Witness Seno:
Q: Why do you say that this is the one?
A: I can recognize the cellophane and the marking, Your Honor.Q: What is the marking?
A: “E” and the size of the cellophane…Q: What is the size of the cellophane?
A: I think two inches by one inch.[42]xxx
SPO1 Roberto Cambi also testified thus:
Prosecutor Borja to Witness Cambi:
Q: If these items which you said [were] recovered from the accused are shown to you, will you be able to identify them?
A: Yes, Sir.Q: We start with the shabu first [seized]. I am showing to you this shabu…, please tell us if this is the one bought by PO2 Seno [from Milan Cabeltes].
A: Yes, Sir, this is the same shabu.Q: Why do you say that this is the one?
A: Because of the marking.xxx
Q: How about the four sachets of shabu that were recovered?
A: Those are the four (4) sachets of shabu recovered from his left pocket.Q: Why do you say these are the ones?
Court to Witness Cambi:
Q: How do you know that these are the same sachets of shabu recovered from the accused, from his left pocket?
A: Because SPO3 Edgar Villanueva marked it with Exhibits “B,” “B-1,” “B-2,” and “B-3.”[43]xxx
In his cross-examination, SPO1 Roberto Cambi also clearly stated thus:
Atty. Ediza to Witness Cambi:
Q: After recovering these alleged sachet of shabu from the accused, you turned over this to your companion, is that correct?
A: After recovering these four sachets of shabu from the accused, I continued holding possession of the four sachets until [we reached] the office together with all the paraphernalia.Q: And inside Room 234, you did not take pictures of the alleged drug paraphernalia? A: We [had] no available camera at that time, that is why we did not take pictures of the evidence seized inside Room 234 of Nature’s Pensionne.
Q: But you are aware Mr. Witness that as policeman, you are obliged to take pictures at the scene of the crime?
A: Yes, Sir, although I am aware that we are obligated to take pictures of the evidence at the scene in the presence of the accused.xxx
Q: And at the office it was actually your investigator who made all the markings, after you turned over all the evidence from Room 234, the room occupied by the accused? A: Yes, Sir.
Court to Witness Cambi:
Q: Who is your investigator?
A: SPO3 Edgar Villanueva, Your Honor.[44]xxx
From the Stenographic Notes, it is clear that at the Maharlika Police Station, SPO3 Villanueva, a member of the raiding team who was also an Investigator, immediately marked the evidence seized from accused in the latter’s presence. We, thus, find the integrity of the evidence against Cabeltes not to have been compromised. The foregoing facts show that the raiding team substantially complied with the requirements provided under Section 21 of RA 9165, in relation to Section 2 of the Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002.[45]
After the physical inventory and marking of the seized items in the presence of the accused, the specimens were then forwarded to the crime laboratory on the same date, October 25, 2004, at 9:45 p.m., for a qualitative laboratory examination. On the following day, October 26, 2004, 9:10 a.m., the results from the crime lab came out. The chronology of events reveals that the chance that evidence was tampered was nil so that there can be no doubt that the items seized from Cabeltes were the same ones examined in the crime laboratory. When said results concluded that all the specimens submitted for testing yielded a positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu, a dangerous drug, there can be no doubt that Cabeltes is guilty of the crime charged.
This Court thus agrees with the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) when it pointed out that “possession of the drug per se constitutes prima facie evidence or knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused absent a satisfactory explanation of such possession.”[46] In his defense, Cabeltes failed to satisfactorily explain the legality of his possession of the dangerous drug substances and thus failed to also overcome the presumption of regularity of official duties of the drug-bust team. As observed by the court a quo, “mere uncorroborated denial on the part of the accused cannot overturn the relative weight and probative value of an affirmative assertion made by Cambi.”[47] To begin with, it is fundamental that factual findings and impressions about witnesses made by a trial court, when supported by the evidence on record, are accorded respect when no gross misapprehension of facts or mere speculations are present.[48]
Based on the evidence presented by the prosecution, it was proven that all the elements for illegal possession of dangerous drugs are present in this case. While there were deviations in the procedure by which the police operatives conducted the buy-bust operation, recent Supreme Court pronouncements instruct us that substantial compliance by the police with the requirements of the law in the custody and disposition of the seized drugs may be accepted as valid. Jurisprudence also teems with cases declaring that such non-compliance with the provisions of Section 21 of R.A. 9165 will not acquit an accused, nor that the seizure of the prohibited items from him be inadmissible, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items be preserved.[49]
Indeed, we cannot subscribe to a perfect chain, as this is almost always impossible to achieve, considering the field conditions which at times may be far from ideal. The most important thing is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized illegal substances.
All told, we find that this case falls within the ambit of the class of cases previously mentioned, where it has been shown that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items had been preserved. In sum, we entertain no doubt as to the guilt of the accused-appellant. Thus, we affirm the court a quo’s judgment of conviction.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision of the court a quo is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.
Francisco and Badelles, JJ., concur.
[1] Penned by Judge Arthur L. Abundiente; Records, pp. 324 – 336.
[2] Records, p. 2.
[3] Records, p. 82.
[4] Joint Affidavit; Records, p. 5.
[5] Id.
[6] Direct Testimony of PO2 Raymund Seno, 7 September 2005; pp. 6 – 8, 12 – 13.
[7] Direct Testimony of SPO1 Roberto Cambi, 9 August 2006; pp. 7 – 8.
[8] Id. at note 6, p. 14.
[9] As described in detail by witness SPO1 Cambi; Id. at note 7, p. 11.
[10] Id. at note 7, pp. 8 – 10.
[11] Id. at 14 – 15.
[12] Records, pp. 126 – 127.
[13] Records, p. 7.
[14] Direct Testimony of Milan Cabeltes, 28 February 2011; pp. 2 – 5.
[15] Id. at 6 – 9.
[16] Id. at 10 – 11.
[17] Exhibit “1,” Records, p. 313.
[18] Exhibit “2,” Records, p. 314.
[19] Direct Testimony of Milan Cabeltes, 28 February 2011; p. 12.
[20] Records, pp. 324 – 336.
[21] Id. at 336.
[22] Records, pp. 337 – 340.
[23] Records, pp. 346 – 347..
[24] Appellant’s Brief; Rollo, pp. 16 – 17.
[25] Id. at 21.
[26] Id. at 26.
[27] Id. at 31 – 32.
[28] People v. Posing, G.R. No. 196973, 31 July 2013.
[29] Joint Affidavit; Records, p. 5.
[30] People v. Torres, G.R. No. 191730, June 5, 2013.
[31] Asiatico v. People, G.R. No. 195005, 12 September 2011, citing People v. Quiamanlon, G.R. No. 191198, 26 January 2011.
[32] G.R. No. 192188, 11 April 2011, citing People v. Dela Rosa, G.R. No. 185166, 26 January 2011. counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice
[33] Http://www.toxlab.co.uk. Last visited on 15 March 2012.
[34] G.R. No. 184954, 10 January 2011.
[35] Asiatico v. People, supra, at previous note; People v. Teodoro, G.R. No. 185164, 22 June 2009; People v. Resurreccion, G.R. No. 186380, 12 October 2009, citing Zalameda v. People, G.R. No. 183656, 4 September 2009.
[36] Guidelines on the Custody and Disposition of Seized Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors And Essential Chemicals, and Laboratory Equipment pursuant to Section 21, Article II of the IRR of R.A. 9165 in relation to Section 81(b), Article IX of R.A. 9165.
[37] Cross-examination of SPO1 Roberto Cambi, November 29, 2006, p. 13.
[38] G.R. No. 189980, 6 April 2011, citing People v. Dolera, G.R. No. 180693, 4 September 2009.
[39] Asiatico v. People, G.R. No. 195005, 12 September 2011; People v. Teodoro, G.R. No. 185164, 22 June 2009.
[40] People v. Resurreccion, G.R. No. 186380, 12 October 2009, citing Zalameda v. People, G.R. No. 183656, 4 September 2009.
[41] Supra, at note 28, citing People v. Cardenas, G.R. No. 190342, 21 March 2012.
[42] Direct Testimony of PO2 Reymund Seno, 7 September 2005; pp. 11 – 12.
[43] Direct Testimony of SPO1 Roberto Cambi, 9 August 2006, p. 9.
[44] Cross-examination of SPO1 Roberto Cambi, 29 November 2006, pp. 12 – 13.
[45] Guidelines on the Custody and Disposition of Seized Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors And Essential Chemicals, and Laboratory Equipment pursuant to Section 21, Article II of the IRR of R.A. 9165 in relation to Section 81(b), Article IX of R.A. 9165.
[46] Rollo, pp. 58 – 83.
[47] Judgment; Rollo, p. 46.
[48] People v. Torres, G.R. No. 191730, 5 June 2013.
[49] People v. Marilyn Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, 28 July 2008; People v. Del Monte, G.R. No. 179940, 23 April 2008; People v. Pringas, G.R. No. 175928, 31 August 31, 2007.