G.R. No. 177191. May 30, 2011
MICHAEL SAN JUAN Y CRUZ, PETITIONER, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
NACHURA, J.:
Before this Court is a Petition[1] for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking the reversal of the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision[2] dated December 21, 2006, which affirmed the decision[3] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City, dated July 8, 2004, finding petitioner Michael San Juan y
Cruz (petitioner), together with Rolando Pineda y Robledo (Pineda),
Cynthia Coderes y Habla (Coderes), guilty beyond reasonable doubt for
violation of Section 5,[4] Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165.[5]
The Facts
Petitioner, together with Pineda and Coderes (accused), was charged
with the crime of Transporting Illegal Drugs in an Information[6] dated December 16, 2003, which reads:
That on or about the 15th day of December 2003, in
Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and
confederating together and mutually helping one another, without
authority of law, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously transport a total of 978.7 grams of Methylamphetamine
Hydrochloride (shabu) a dangerous drug[s].Contrary to law.
When arraigned on February 17, 2004, the three accused entered separate pleas of not guilty to the offense charged.[7] During the pre-trial stage, the three accused did not enter into any stipulation or admission of facts with the prosecution.[8] Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued. In the course of the trial, two varying versions arose.
Version of the Prosecution
On December 15, 2003, at about 10:00 a.m., elements of the
Intelligence Unit of the Pasay City Police, namely: Police Inspector
Grant Golod (P/Insp. Golod), Police Officer (PO)3 Zoilo Manalo (PO3
Manalo), and PO2 Roberto Jovenir (PO2 Jovenir), together with Senior
Police Officer (SPO)2 Soriño Aure (SPO2 Aure), PO2 Froilan Dayawon (PO2
Dayawon), PO2 Carlito Bintulan, and PO1 Angel dela Cruz, who were all in
civilian attire, conducted surveillance, monitoring, and intelligence
gathering to arrest violators of the law along Senator Gil Puyat
(formerly Buendia) Avenue in Pasay City due to numerous reports of
rampant snatching, robbery, and holdup in the area. P/Insp. Golod and
PO3 Manalo boarded a vehicle driven by PO2 Jovenir, while SPO2 Aure and
the rest of the officers occupied another.[9]
While cruising along Senator Gil Puyat Avenue, the police officers
noticed a blue Toyota Corolla 4-door sedan car (car), which had no
license plate at its rear, parked in front of a liquor store. Thus,
P/Insp. Golod called the other group using his cellphone, and informed
them that they should check the said car.[10]
SPO2 Aure and PO2 Dayawon approached the driver side of the car,
whereas PO3 Manalo and PO2 Jovenir approached the passenger side[11]
thereof. SPO2 Aure knocked on the car’s window. When the driver, later
identified as petitioner, opened the car’s windows, SPO2 Aure asked for
the Official Receipt (OR) and the Certificate of Registration (CR) of
the car but none was produced. SPO2 Aure was about to accost petitioner,
when a commotion ensued at the passenger side of the car because PO2
Jovenir noticed that the passenger, later identified as Pineda, was
trying to hide a plastic bag under his seat, the contents of which
accidentally came out (lumawit). PO2 Jovenir opened the door, held Pineda’s right hand and asked him, “Ano yan?”
The contents were discovered to be plastic containers containing white
crystalline substance which the police officers suspected to be shabu[12] so much so that PO2 Jovenir uttered, “Pare, may dala to, shabu, positive.”[13] At this juncture, Pineda said, “Sir, baka pwede nating ayusin ito.”[14]
SPO2 Aure instructed petitioner to alight. When he was frisked, SPO2
Aure recovered two small plastic sachets containing white crystalline
substance. SPO2 Aure turned over these sachets to PO2 Jovenir. At the
back seat of the car was another passenger who was later identified as
Coderes. Upon questioning, Coderes replied that the owner of the shabu
was a certain Mike who was waiting for the accused at her condominium
unit at Unit 1225, 12th Floor of the Cityland Condominium on Dela Rosa
Street, Makati City (Cityland Condominium).[15]
Immediately thereafter, the police officers, with them the car, the
accused, and the illegal drugs, went to Cityland Condominium for a
follow-up operation. Upon arrival, P/Insp. Golod coordinated with the
Security Officer of the said condominium, while SPO2 Aure, PO3 Manalo,
and PO2 Jovenir were led by Coderes to Unit 1225. SPO2 Aure, PO3 Manalo,
PO2 Jovenir allowed Coderes to walk ahead of them. Upon reaching Unit
1225, Coderes pretended to knock on the door but the police officers did
not notice that she had a key with her. Coderes immediately opened the
door, went inside the unit and locked herself in. The police officers
forcibly opened the door by kicking it and rearrested Coderes. They then
searched the unit for “Mike,” but they discovered that Coderes was the
only one inside. From Cityland Condominium, the police officers brought
all the accused to the Pasay City Police Headquarters for investigation.[16]
Subsequently, upon examination, the two plastic containers and the
two plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance were
positively identified as shabu,[17]
but the supposed testimony of Engineer Richard Allan B. Mangalip,
Forensic Chemical Officer before the RTC, was the subject of stipulation
by the parties.[18]
Version of the Defense
Pineda and Coderes denied that they were arrested while on board the
car and that they possessed the illegal drugs. They claimed that, on
December 15, 2003, between 9:00 and 10:00 a.m., they were inside Unit
1225 and were preparing to go out shopping; that somebody knocked on the
door; and Pineda asked who that person was, but there was no reply;
that the door was forcibly opened and armed men gained entry and ordered
them to lie down on the bed face down; that she said men searched the
unit and took their personal belongings and money; that they later
recognized the said armed men as Pasay City police officers; that they
presented no warrant of arrest and/or search warrant; that they were
brought to separate rooms in Sinta Court Motel (Sinta Motel) at the
corner of F.B. Harrison and EDSA Extension in Pasay City; that the
police officers demanded money from them in the amount of P500,000.00 in
exchange for their release; and that they were brought to the Criminal
Investigation Division (CID) of the Pasay City Police Headquarters at
around 7:00 or 8:00 p.m.[19] On that day, Coderes only saw petitioner at the CID.[20]
On June 2, 2004, petitioner testified that: he knew Pineda because he
is the godfather of one of Pineda’s children; that he also knew Coderes
because she is the live-in partner of Pineda; that around 10:00 a.m. on
December 15, 2003, he was at the lobby of the Cityland Condominium and
was waiting for an elevator ride in order to see Pineda and Coderes for
the purpose of offering them the car; that upon riding the elevator,
three (3) male persons joined him who were all in civilian attire and
whom he later came to know to be Pasay City police officers, namely: PO2
Jovenir and P/Insp. Golod and another one whom he failed to identify;
that one of them pressed the number four (4) button of the elevator; and
that at the time, petitioner was calling Pineda through his cellular
phone, but, there was no signal.[21]
Petitioner asseverated that P/Insp. Golod suddenly held petitioner’s
hand which was holding the cellular phone, and PO2 Jovenir punched him
on the stomach and was told to peacefully go with them so that he would
not be hurt; that they did not introduce themselves to him; that the
elevator opened on the fourth floor, and the person who pressed the
number four (4) button went out and the elevator went down; that when
the elevator reached the ground floor, P/Insp. Golod pulled him towards
the lobby, while PO2 Jovenir remained by the door of the elevator; that
there was another man who held him and he was pulled out of the Cityland
Condominium; that he was brought to a parked white car, handcuffed at
his back, and made to board at the backseat of the said white car with
his face down, and thereafter the car left; that he was not able to know
what kind of white car it was because he was ordered to bow down and
not to look out, and they were always holding his head; that he was with
P/Insp. Golod and the other policemen inside the white car; that he was
also brought to Sinta Motel; that he was brought inside a room, and
frisked, and the police officers took from him his watch, his wallet and
the money inside his wallet, the car key, and the parking ticket; that
he was asked if he knew Pineda and Coderes to which he affirmed; that
when he was asked who was the owner of the car key, he said that the car
did not belong to him as it was just being offered for sale; that in
going to the Cityland Condominium, he used the car; that when he was
brought out of the Cityland Condominium, the car was left at the parking
area of the Cityland Condominium; that, as a car sales agent, he made
sure that the OR, CR, and plate number of the car were complete; that
the car had a rear plate number; that P/Insp. Golod demanded that
petitioner pay P200,000.00 in exchange for his release; that he stayed
at the Sinta Motel for five (5) hours before he was brought to the CID;
that he stayed at the CID for two (2) hours and he was made to sit on a
chair; that after two (2) hours he was brought inside a room of the same
building where he stayed until the following day; that on the following
day, the accused were brought to Fort Bonifacio for drug testing; and
that they were brought back to the CID and, in the afternoon, petitioner
was brought to the Pasay City Jail. While inside the CID, petitioner
saw the car parked at the back of the Pasay City Hall.[22]
The RTC’s Ruling
The RTC gave greater weight to the evidence presented by the
prosecution, and found the testimonies of the arresting officers more
credible and worthy of belief. Thus, in its decision dated July 8, 2004,
the RTC convicted petitioner, Pineda, and Coderes of the crime charged,
the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing premises and
considerations, this Court hereby renders judgment finding the three
accused Rolando Pineda y Robledo, Cynthia Coderes y Habla and Michael
San Juan y Cruz all GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and they are hereby
sentenced to suffer the penalty of Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine
of Php 500,000.00 each, plus costs.
The 978.7 grams of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) involved in
this case is hereby declared forfeited in favor of the Government and
ordered to be turned-over to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for
its appropriate disposition in accordance with the provisions of the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Law.SO ORDERED.
Aggrieved, the accused, through their respective counsels, appealed their case.[23]
The CA’s Ruling
On December 21, 2006, the CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC. The CA
opined that the inconsistencies pointed out by the defense were
unimportant matters which do not delve into the material elements of the
crime. The CA also relied on the presumption that the aforementioned
police officers regularly performed their official functions. Thus, the
CA disposed of the case in this wise:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated
July 8, 2004 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 116 of Pasay City
convicting accused-appellants Rolando R. Pineda, Cynthia H. Coderes and
Michael C. San Juan of violation of Section 5, Rule II of Republic Act
No. 9165 or the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 in Criminal Case No.
03-2804CFM is hereby AFFIRMED.SO ORDERED.
Undaunted, petitioner alone filed a Motion for Reconsideration[24] which the CA, however, denied in its Resolution[25] dated March 21, 2007.
Hence, this Petition based on the following grounds:
- THE HONORABLE APPELLATE COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN
ADMITTING AND CONSIDERING THE PROSECUTION’S EVIDENCE DESPITE THE GLARING
VIOLATIONS OF PETITIONER’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND R.A. 9165 MAKING
SUCH EVIDENCE INADMISSIBLE.- THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN
AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF CONVICTION OF THE TRIAL COURT DESPITE THE
ADMITTED CONFLICTING AND INCONSISTENT TESTIMONIES OF ALL THE PROSECUTION
WITNESSES WHICH CLEARLY PUTS THE CONVICTION IN DOUBT.- THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN
AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT DESPITE THE LATTER’S CLEAR
VIOLATION OF ESTABLISHED PROCEDURAL RULES AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ON
DUE PROCESS BY NOT ALLOWING PETITIONER TO PRESENT A MATERIAL WITNESS.[26]
Petitioner avers that the police officers initially apprehended the
accused for a mere traffic violation; hence, there was no justifiable
reason for them to search the car in the absence of any search warrant
and/or the fact that the accused were not caught in flagrante delicto.
The police officers also failed to apprise the accused of their rights.
Petitioner points out that the follow-up operation conducted in Unit
1225 was unlawful as the police officers were not armed with any search
warrant, and they simply relied on the alleged information given by
Coderes. In view of the numerous, conflicting, and material
inconsistencies in the respective testimonies of PO2 Jovenir, SPO2 Aure
and P/Insp. Golod, petitioner submits that such would lend credence to
the unanimous claim of all the accused that they were arrested in
Cityland Condominium in Makati City and not on board the car parked in
Pasay City. Moreover, petitioner, invoking R.A. No. 9165, asseverates
that the police officers did not follow the procedure prescribed by law.
He questions the identity of the illegal drugs alleged to have been
seized from the accused from those presented before the RTC because
instead of proceeding immediately to the Pasay City Police Headquarters,
the police officers went to the Cityland Condominium, making planting
of evidence highly probable.[27] The police officers also failed to make any inventory in clear violation of the law.[28]
On the other hand, respondent People of the Philippines, through the
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), argues that only questions of law
may be entertained by this Court. The issue of whether petitioner was
apprehended in the act of violating R.A. No. 9165 is factual in nature.
The OSG claims that petitioner was lawfully caught in flagrante delicto,
thus, any evidence seized from him may be used against him as evidence.
Citing the CA’s ruling, the OSG avers that the police officers were
clear, positive, and categorical in their testimonies against the
accused. Lastly, the OSG invokes the rule that findings of fact of the
trial court, when affirmed by the CA, are accorded not only respect, but
also finality by this Court.[29]
Our Ruling
The instant Petition is impressed with merit.
It is the unique nature of an appeal in a criminal case that the
appeal throws the whole case open for review and it is the duty of the
appellate court to correct, cite, and appreciate errors in the appealed
judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned.[30] We find the Petition meritorious on the basis of such review.
Well-settled is the rule that findings of fact of the trial court are
given great respect. But when there is a misappreciation of facts as to
compel a contrary conclusion, the Court will not hesitate to reverse
the factual findings of the trial court. In such a case, the scales of
justice must tilt in favor of an accused, considering that he stands to
lose his liberty by virtue of his conviction. The Court must be
satisfied that the factual findings and conclusions of the trial court
leading to an accused’s conviction must satisfy the standard of proof
beyond reasonable doubt.[31]
Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 charts the procedure on
the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered
dangerous drugs, given the severity of the penalties imposed for
violations of said law, viz.: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.[32]
On the other hand, the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 provides:
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.[33]
The Court finds that the apprehending police officers failed to
comply with the guidelines set forth in R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR which
are designed to clearly identify the existence of the corpus delicti
– the seized illegal drugs – the integrity of which the prosecution
must show to have been preserved, considering that the same is not
readily identifiable by sight or touch and can easily be tampered with
or substituted.[34]
On Direct Examination, PO2 Jovenir testified:
FISCAL PUTI: Q – And did you make any inventory? A – Right after I confiscated the said item from the passenger, I put my initial on the paper bag and its content. Q – My question is, did you make any inventory? A – Yes sir. Q – Do you have a copy of that inventory? A – None sir.[35]
Likewise, on Cross-Examination, PO2 Jovenir stated:
ATTY. CARAG, JR.: x x x x Q – Now, Mr. Witness, you made an inventory with these items that you confiscated from the three (3) accused, am I right? A – Yes, sir. Q – Who were with you when [you] made an inventory of these items you confiscated from the accused? PROSECUTOR PUTI:
May I know from the defense where the inventory was made, at the police office, at the scene or where? THE COURT: Witness may answer. THE WITNESS: A – SPO2 Aure, PO2 Dayawon, PO3 Manalo and I, sir. THE COURT: Q – Was the inventory in writing? A – It was not in writing, Your Honor.[36]
The answers elicited from PO2 Jovenir raise numerous questions and
ultimately cast doubts on the identity, integrity, and evidentiary value
of the seized illegal drugs. Obviously, the drugs were not
photographed. It is also not clear if PO2 Jovenir immediately marked and
inventoried these items in the presence of the accused or their
representatives or counsel, a representative from the media and the DOJ,
and any elected public official. Surely, the persons required by law to
sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof were not
given any inventory for the obvious reason that no written inventory was
prepared.
While it is true that non-compliance with the inventory, not to
mention the photograph requirement of R.A. No. 9165, does not
necessarily render void and invalid the seizure of the dangerous drugs,
there must, however, be justifiable grounds to warrant an exception
therefrom, provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/s.[37] No justifiable ground, however, was advanced by the police officers.
In this case, even if the requirement to conduct an inventory were to
be excused, the prosecution still failed to discharge its burden.
Although PO2 Jovenir identified Exhibits “A-1” “A-2” “A-3” and “A-4” as
the drugs seized from accused, he did not disclose the name of the
investigator to whom he turned them over, other than saying that he
turned them over to the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations
Task Force (SAID/SOFT).[38]
And there is no showing if that same investigator was the one who turned
the drugs over to the forensic chemist, or if the forensic chemist
whose name appears in the physical science report was the one who
received them from that investigator, or where the drugs were kept for
safekeeping after the chemical test was conducted up to the time they
were presented in court. The prosecution failed to provide the details
of these essential matters. Thus, this Court in People of the Philippines v. Elmer Peralta y de Guzman alias “Memeng,”[39]
for the guidance of our public prosecutors, recommended questions that
would aid the court in determining the innocence or guilt of the
accused.
Most importantly, this Court cannot close its eyes to the fact that
instead of bringing the accused immediately to the Pasay City Police
Headquarters, as required by law, the police officers opted to go to the
Cityland Condominium in Makati City, bringing with them the car, all of
the accused, and the illegal drugs seized. Even the prosecution
considered such act of the police officers as dangerous.[40] In People of the Philippines v. Ronaldo de Guzman y Danzil,[41]
we held that the length of time that lapsed from the seizure of the
items from the accused until the delivery thereof to the investigating
officer for marking is too long to be inconsequential. This considered
such length of time an important factor in acquitting the accused
therein. In this case, a similar vacuum in the chain of custody of the
seized items was likewise created which this Court cannot simply brush
aside.
In sum, there is a serious doubt whether the illegal drugs presented
before the RTC were the same drugs recovered from petitioner and
accused. Consequently, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable
doubt the identity of the corpus delicti.
Finally, the evidence presented by the prosecution failed to reveal
the identity of the person who had custody and safekeeping of the drugs
after their examination and pending presentation in court. Thus, the
prosecution likewise failed to establish the chain of custody required
by law, the absence of which is fatal to its cause. In fine, the
identity of the corpus delicti in this case was not proven beyond
reasonable doubt. There was an unexplained break in the chain of
custody, fatal to the prosecution’s case.[42]
WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the Decision dated December 21, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 00180, and ACQUITS
petitioner Michael San Juan y Cruz for failure of the prosecution to
prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention unless he is confined for another lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Director, Bureau of
Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. The Director
of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to report the action he has taken to this Court within five days from receipt of this Decision.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Peralta, Abad and Mendoza, JJ.,concur.
[1]Rollo, pp. 29-48.
[2]Penned by Associate
Justice Rodrigo V. Cosico, with Associate Justices Edgardo F. Sundiam
and Celia C. Librea-Leagogo, concurring; id. at 51-68.
[3]Id. at 74-90.
[4]Sec. 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 (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos
(P10,000,000.00) 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.
[5]AN ACT INSTITUTING THE
COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO.
6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED,
PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. Also known as the
“Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.” Approved on June 7, 2002.
[6]Records, p. 2.
[7]Id. at 39.
[8]Id. at 44.
[9]TSN, March 3, 2004, pp. 7-11.
[10]Id.
[11]TSN, March 11, 2004, pp. 9-14.
[12]TSN, March 3, 2004, pp. 16-17.
[13]TSN, March 11, 2004, p. 37.
[14]TSN, March 3, 2004, p. 17.
[15]TSN, March 11, 2004, pp. 15-21.
[16]Id. at 21-30.
[17]Records, p. 12.
[18]TSN, March 11, 2004, pp. 59-65.
[19]TSN, April 14, 2004, pp. 11-43. Please also see TSN, May 6, 2004, pp. 3-22.
[20]TSN, May 6, 2004, p. 19.
[21]TSN, June 22, 2004, pp. 7-11.
[22]Id. at 11-63.
[23]Records, pp. 237-238, 241-242.
[24]CA rollo, pp. 247-266.
[25]Id. at 273-274.
[26]Rollo, p. 35.
[27]Id.
[28]Reply; id. at 911-916.
[29]Comment; id. at 899-907.
[30]People v. Balagat, G.R. No. 177163, April 24, 2009, 586 SCRA 640, 644-645.
[31]Violeta Bahilidad v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 185195, March 17, 2010.
[32]Emphasis supplied.
[33]Emphasis supplied.
[24]Malilin v. People, G.R. No. 179253, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 619, 632-633.
[35]TSN, March 3, 2004, p. 25.
[36]TSN, March 9, 2004, p. 21.
[37]Section 21 (a), Article
II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165:
(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, 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.
[38]TSN, March 9, 2004, p. 7.
[39]G.R. No. 173472, February 26, 2010.
[40]TSN, June 8, 2004, p. 47.
[41]G.R. No. 186498, March 26, 2010.
[42]People of the Philippines v. Roldan Morales y Midarasa, G.R. No. 172873, March 19, 2010.<!–