G.R. No. 191266, June 06, 2011
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DARIUS BAUTISTA Y ORSINO @ DADA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
This is an appeal from the August 20, 2009 Decision [1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03300, which affirmed the April 16, 2008 Decision [2]
in Criminal Case No. 04-231073 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 2 in Manila. The RTC found accused Darius O. Bautista (Bautista)
guilty of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165
or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Facts
The charge against the accused stemmed from the following Information dated October 18, 2004:
Criminal Case No. 04-231073
That
on or about October 15, 2004, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the
said accused, not being authorized by law to sell, trade, deliver or
give away any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and knowingly sell zero point zero three four (0.034) gram of white
crystalline substance containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, known as
“shabu” a dangerous drug.Contrary to law. [3]
The
case was originally tried jointly with Criminal Case No. 04-231074
against Armando Marcos y Balderama @ Onyo (Marcos), Bautista’s
brother-in-law, for violation of Sec. 11(3), Art. II of RA 9165. The
instant appeal, however, relates only to accused Bautista in Criminal
Case No. 04-231073, as Marcos, the accused in Criminal Case No.
04-231074, was acquitted by the RTC. Both cases arose out of the same
facts and circumstances. Accordingly, common evidence was then presented
during the trial.
At the arraignment, the accused, who was
assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. Trial
proceeded after the pre-trial.
During the trial, the prosecution
offered the testimonies of Police Officer 2 Jonathan Ruiz (PO2 Ruiz) and
PO2 Crispino Ocampo (PO2 Ocampo) both of the Western Police District’s
(WPD’s) District Anti-Illegal Drugs-Special Operations Task Group
(DAID-SOTG) on United Nations Avenue, Ermita, Manila. On the other hand,
the defense presented, as its witnesses, the accused; co-accused
Marcos; Irene Manabat (Manabat), a kakanin (native delicacy) vendor; and Anna Marie Ignacio (Ignacio), accused’s neighbor and operator of a video karera. [4]
At the pre-trial, the parties likewise stipulated the qualifications of
Forensic Chemist Elisa G. Reyes (Reyes), and sought that the following
documents be marked and admitted: [5]
Request to the prosecutor, showing that both accused were properly
booked and that inquest was properly conducted within the reglementary
period.
Reyes
conducted the laboratory examination of the specimen that is subject of
the case. But her testimony, not having personal knowledge of the
subject incident, was dispensed with by the RTC. [6]
The Prosecution’s Version of Facts
The
prosecution presented PO2 Ruiz as its first witness. He testified that
a confidential informant called the WPD’s office several times on
October 15, 2004 to report that a certain person called “Dada” was
engaged in dealing illegal drugs along Mata Street, Tondo, Manila. A
buy-bust operation was, therefore, organized by Police Inspector Angel
De Leon (P/Insp. De Leon) of the WPD. The buy-bust team was composed of
PO2 Ruiz, PO2 Ocampo, PO2 Rhumjalie Salazar, PO2 Dranred Cipriano, and
PO1 Erwin Castro. [7] For
this purpose, PO2 Ruiz was designated as the poseur-buyer and a one
hundred-peso bill, which was to serve as the buy-bust money, was marked
with “JR,” representing the initials of PO2 Ruiz. [8]
He
narrated that on the same day, at about 11:30 in the evening, the
buy-bust team organized by the WPD went to Mata Street in Tondo, Manila,
the site pointed out by the confidential informant, in order to execute
the buy-bust operation. [9]
The team first went around the area, then met with the confidential
informant for the operation. The team saw “Dada” standing along Mata
Street. While PO2 Ruiz and the confidential informant proceeded to
approach “Dada,” the rest of the buy-bust team hid themselves in a place
where they could have a good view of the buy-bust operation that was to
transpire, [10] which was about five to seven meters away. [11] During the operation, the informant introduced PO2 Ruiz as a buyer of shabu. [12]
PO2 Ruiz then handed the marked money to “Dada” in exchange for a
plastic sachet, which “Dada” took out from his right front pocket. [13]
At this instance, PO2 Ruiz identified himself to “Dada” as a police
officer and then made the pre-arranged signal to his colleagues by
removing his ball cap. [14] Accused was arrested and brought to the DAID-SOTG. [15] PO2 Ruiz ordered accused to empty his pocket and recovered the marked money. [16] Marcos, who was within the vicinity accompanying “Dada,” was likewise arrested. [17] PO2 Ruiz marked the plastic sachet with “DBO,” the initials of accused, and thereafter turned it over to the investigator. [18] The investigator then turned the plastic sachet over to the WPD’s Crime Laboratory for examination. [19]
PO2
Ocampo was presented by the prosecution as the second witness. He
testified that on October 15, 2004, P/Insp. De Leon directed a number of
police officers to conduct a buy-bust operation against a certain
“Dada.” Since PO2 Ocampo was very familiar with the target area for
being a nearby resident, he volunteered to be part of the buy-bust
team. He confirmed that PO2 Ruiz was designated as the poseur-buyer.
When PO2 Ruiz and the informant went to the target area to conduct the
buy-bust operation, PO2 Ocampo went to his residence, which was two
blocks away from the target area, for approximately 30 minutes. Upon
his return to the target area, PO2 Ruiz informed him that the operation
had been consummated and two persons were arrested. The buy-bust team
then brought the arrested persons to the police station for
investigation. [20] PO2 Ocampo stated that he and PO2 Ruiz were also present when the accused and Marcos were turned over to the investigator. [21] PO2 Ocampo properly identified accused Bautista (“Dada”) and Marcos in the RTC. [22]
The Defense’s Version of Facts
The
accused was presented as the first witness for the defense. He stated
that on October 15, 2004 between 9 o’clock to 9:30 in the evening, he
was inside his neighbor’s house playing video karera with Marcos and five other people. [23] While they were playing video karera, about eight police officers suddenly arrived and announced, “Huwag kayong tatakbo mga pulis kami.”
(Do not run. We are police officers.) The accused testified that right
after the verbal warning, the police officers frisked them.
Thereafter, the five other persons in the house were released, and only
the two of them, the accused and Marcos, were arrested. [24] They were then brought to the DAID-SOTG office on United Nations Avenue in Manila for investigation. [25]
The defense presented Manabat as its second witness. She testified that on October 15, 2004, she was at the video karera
on 348 Mata Street, Tondo, Manila, when the arrest happened. She was
there to have her money changed into coins. At the time, Ignacio, the
owner and operator of the video karera, and some children were
also present. She said that two persons in civilian clothes suddenly
appeared and asked who the owner of the video karera was. Marcos
answered that he did not know. Thereafter, accused and Marcos were
frisked and then arrested. She further testified that accused and Marcos
resisted by holding on to a steel bar such that Marcos’ hand had to be
burned by a cigarette in order for him to let go of it. [26]
The
defense then presented Marcos as the third witness. Marcos, a pedicab
driver, testified that on October 15, 2004 at 10 o’clock in the evening,
while he was at the video karera, two persons arrived asking him who the owner of the video karera was. He replied that he did not know. [27] He and accused were then frisked and forced to go with the said persons to the DAID-SOTG office.
The defense also presented Ignacio, the owner and operator of the video karera,
as its witness. Ignacio testified that on October 15, 2004, she was at
her house on 348 Mata St., Tondo, Manila, which was also where people
played the video karera. She stated that at about 10 o’clock in
the evening, three persons went inside her house and introduced
themselves as police officers, while about three others waited outside.
The police officers arrested two persons playing video karera in her house, [28] but the two resisted the arrest. [29]
She said that she only knew one of the two arrested, Marcos, as he was
her neighbor. She said further that besides the two persons arrested,
three others were also playing video karera at the time of the
arrest. One of them was a woman, which she identified to be her
neighbor, Manabat. Finally, Ignacio stated that she was not arrested,
notwithstanding the fact that she was operating a video karera, which was illegal. [30]
Ruling of the Trial Court
After trial, the RTC convicted the accused. The dispositive portion of its April 16, 2008 Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows, to wit:
- In
Criminal Case No. 04-231073 finding accused, Darius Bautista y Orsino @
Dada, GUILTY, beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, he is
hereby sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00
without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the
costs;- In Criminal Case No. 04-231074, for failure of
the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt, we hereby ACQUIT, accused, Armando Marcos y Balderama @ Onyo, for
the crime charged. Costs de officio.The specimens are
forfeited in favor of the government and the Branch Clerk of Court,
accompanied by the Branch Sheriff, is directed to turn over with
dispatch and upon proper receipt the said specimen to the Philippine
Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper disposal in accordance with
the law and rules.SO ORDERED. [31]
In
finding for the prosecution and convicting the accused of the crime
charged, the RTC gave credence to the testimonies of the witnesses for
the prosecution. The RTC held that the testimonies of the prosecution’s
witnesses, who are police officers, should be given full faith and
credit, absent any clear and convincing evidence that the members of the
buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or were not properly
performing their duties. [32] Accused failed to show any ill motive on the part of the police officers to testify falsely against him.
The
RTC further held that the accused’s claim of alibi is not substantiated
and therefore not believable. The RTC likewise did not give credence
to the testimonies of Manabat and Ignacio, whose testimonies showed
several inconsistencies and discrepancies that raised doubt as to their
credibility. [33]
On
the other hand, the RTC acquitted Marcos of the crime charged, because
the testimonies of the police officers led to the conclusion that only
accused Bautista could be held guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime. As seen in the testimony of PO2 Ruiz, the confidential informant
pointed out accused Bautista only as the seller of prohibited drugs and
the buy-bust operation was, thus, conducted against him. The RTC held
that PO2 Ruiz had no personal knowledge of the arrest of Marcos, as he
was apprehended by a companion of PO2 Ruiz while PO2 Ruiz himself was
busy arresting the accused, Bautista. [34]
PO2 Cruz, the officer who arrested Marcos, failed to testify in court.
Marcos could, therefore, not be convicted of the crime charged.
Ruling of the Appellate Court
On August 20, 2009, the CA affirmed the judgment of the RTC. The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the instant appeal is DISMISSED and the assailed Decision dated April 16, 2008 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. [35]
The
CA held that the factual findings of the trial court should be given
great weight, considering that they have been fully substantiated by the
evidence on record. [36] The CA held that there was in fact no break in the custody of the corpus delicti, i.e., the confiscated dangerous drug, which in this case is methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. [37] Finally, the CA ruled that the alleged non-compliance with the provision of Sec. 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
is not fatal, considering that the integrity and evidentiary value of
the seized dangerous drug were properly preserved as can be gleaned from
the facts of the case. [38]
The Issues
Hence,
this appeal is before Us, with accused-appellant maintaining that the
trial court erred in convicting him of the crime charged, despite the
fact that his guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. He alleges
that reasonable doubt exists because there is a break in the chain of
custody of the seized dangerous drug. He further alleges that there was
a serious deviation from the requirements of Sec. 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 on the custody and disposition of the said seized dangerous drug.
The Court’s Ruling
We sustain the conviction of accused-appellant.
Factual findings of the RTC should be given full faith and credit unless there is
a showing of a misinterpretation of material facts or grave abuse of discretion
In
the present case, the prosecution and the defense presented very
different facts of the case. It was, therefore, obligatory upon the RTC
to determine which of these facts should be given great weight and
credence. As We held in People v. Gabrino: [39]
We have held time and again that “the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of a witness is entitled to great weight, sometimes even with finality.” As We have reiterated in the very recent case of People v. Jose Pepito Combate, where
there is no showing that the trial court overlooked or misinterpreted
some material facts or that it gravely abused its discretion, then We do
not disturb and interfere with its assessment of the facts and the
credibility of the witnesses. This is clearly because the judge in the
trial court was the one who personally heard the accused and the
witnesses, and observed their demeanor as well as the manner in which
they testified during trial. Accordingly, the trial court,
or more particularly, the RTC in this case, is in a better position to
assess and weigh the evidence presented during trial.In the
present case, in giving weight to the prosecution’s testimonies, there
is not a slight indication that the RTC acted with grave abuse of
discretion, or that it overlooked any material fact. In fact, no
allegation to that effect ever came from the defense. There is
therefore no reason to disturb the findings of fact made by the RTC and
its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses. To reiterate this
time-honored doctrine and well-entrenched principle, We quote from People v. Robert Dinglasan, thus:In
the matter of credibility of witnesses, we reiterate the familiar and
well-entrenched rule that the factual findings of the trial court should
be respected. The judge a quo was in a better position to pass
judgment on the credibility of witnesses, having personally heard them
when they testified and observed their deportment and manner of
testifying. It is doctrinally settled that the evaluation of
the testimony of the witnesses by the trial court is received on appeal
with the highest respect, because it had the direct opportunity to
observe the witnesses on the stand and detect if they were telling the
truth. This assessment is binding upon the appellate court in the
absence of a clear showing that it was reached arbitrarily or that the
trial court had plainly overlooked certain facts of substance or value
that if considered might affect the result of the case. (Emphasis Ours.)
In
appreciating the facts of the present case, the RTC gave credence to
the testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses, which the CA found to be
without grave abuse of discretion. The CA likewise did not make any
finding that the RTC overlooked or misinterpreted a material fact. In
fact, the CA affirmed the factual determination made by the RTC. As We
have previously explained and discussed in Gabrino and in a
multitude of cases, the trial court judge is in the best position to
make this determination as the judge was the one who personally heard
the accused and the witnesses, as well as observed their demeanor and
the manner in which they testified during trial. [40]
Accordingly, We do not disturb or interfere with the trial court’s
finding of facts and its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses.
Furthermore,
the RTC made a very important observation that explains why it found
the testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses more credible, to wit:
Witness
Anna Marie Ignacio when asked by us if she was also operating pedicabs
aside from illegal video karera she answered no but when pressed if
accused Armando [Marcos] was one of her drivers of pedicab, she reneged
and admitted that indeed she was also operating pedicabs and Armando was
one of the drivers. In her examination-in-chief, she claimed knowing
Armando only because he is a neighbor. She is therefore lying and was
also trying to save the hide of accused Armando and Darius. Had it not
for the failure of PO Cruz, one who allegedly arrested and recovered the
evidence from accused Armando, to testify in Court the prosecution
could have proved beyond reasonable doubt his guilt. [41]
In appreciating the evidence for the prosecution, the CA ratiocinated, as follows:
x x x The accused-appellant was caught by the police in flagrante in
a buy-bust operation. The delivery of the contraband to the poseur
buyer and the receipt of the marked money by the accused consummated the
buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officer and the accused.Accused-appellant’s
challenge against the legality of the buy-bust operation is a closed
issue. A buy-bust operation is a common form of entrapment that is
resorted to for trapping and capturing felons in the execution of their
criminal plan. The operation is sanctioned by law and has consistently
proved to be an effective method of apprehending drug sellers. As for
the convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were
inspired by improper motives or were not performing their duty, their
testimonies on the operation deserve full faith and credit. No evidence
of improper motive on the part of the buy-bust operation team was
established. The allegation that the policemen brought the appellant
and his companion forcefully to the police station when nothing was
recovered from them, after asking P63,000.00 from them deserves scant
consideration. As aptly held by the trial court, the defense of frame-up
has been invariably viewed by the Supreme Court with disfavor for it
can easily be concocted and, like denial, is a common and standard line
of defense in most prosecutions arising from violation of the Dangerous
Drugs Act. [42]
On
the other hand, there were inconsistencies in the testimonies of the
defense’s witnesses, which, while only reflective of the circumstances
surrounding the case, greatly demonstrate their lack of credibility.
First,
as to the testimony of Marcos, he initially stated that when he was
asked by the two persons who went inside the house with the video karera, he said that he did not know its owner. [43] However, when asked during cross-examination, he disclosed that not only did he know the owner of the video karera, but he also knew that the same person is actually the owner of the pedicab that he drives. [44] Marcos testified:
Moreover, when Manabat testified, she said that she was at the video karera because she was changing her one hundred-peso bill into coins. [46] In fact, she stated that it only took her seconds to do so: [47]
said you were there because you are changing your money into coins, to
whom you were changing it, from the owner of the video karera?
Contrary
to Manabat’s statement, there was clearly no indication in Ignacio’s
testimony that Manabat was at the place of the incident to change her
money into coins. In fact, when Ignacio testified, she informed the
trial court that Manabat was at the video karera to play:
In
addition to the RTC’s finding of a lack of credibility on the part of
the defense’s witnesses, it has observed correctly that unless the
defense could show with clear and convincing evidence that the members
of the buy-bust team were inspired with ill motives or that they were
not properly performing their duties, the defense’s alibi of frame-up
cannot stand. [50] We held in People v. Andres,
“The Court has invariably viewed with disfavor the defenses of denial
and frame-up. Such defenses can easily be fabricated and are common ploy
in prosecutions for the illegal sale and possession of dangerous
drugs.” [51]
Considering
the absence of either a mistake in the appreciation of material facts
or grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court judge, and
considering further the presumption of regularity on the actions of the
police officers, the inconsistencies that raised doubt on the
credibility of the defense’s witnesses, and finally the opportunity of
the trial court judge to directly observe the witnesses and ascertain
their credibility, which remains uncontroverted, We do not disturb the
said court’s assessment of the facts. We, therefore, agree with the
RTC’s factual determination, which the CA consequently affirmed.
The
chain of custody of the seized dangerous drug was properly and clearly
established; consequently, the integrity and the evidentiary value of
the seized dangerous drug were properly preserved by the apprehending
police officers
The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 provides for the requirements in handling seized dangerous drugs. Particularly, its Sec. 21(1) requires that:
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.
And the law’s Implementing Rules and Regulations states:
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 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 Ours.)
We have
ruled time and again that non-compliance with the afore-quoted
provisions does not render the seizure of the dangerous drug void and
the evidence inadmissible. [52]
Conversely, the absence of a showing that the apprehending officer did
not make an inventory of the seized items and that he did not take
photographs of them is not fatal. [53]
Besides, the law itself lays down certain exceptions to the general compliance requirement, stressing the point that “as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team,” the seizure of and custody over the dangerous drugs shall not be rendered void and invalid. [54]
In
cases of dangerous drugs, what is important and necessary is for the
prosecution to prove with moral certainty “that the dangerous drug
presented in court as evidence against the accused [be] the same item
recovered from his possession.” [55]
In
this case, it is undoubted that the witnesses for the prosecution
clearly established such essential requirement. Right after the
buy-bust operation on October 15, 2004, accused-appellant and Marcos
were immediately brought to the DAID-SOTG office. And upon their
arrival, PO2 Ruiz marked the specimens seized from accused-appellant
with specific proper markings and turned them over to the investigator,
who in turn referred them at once to the Philippine National Police
Crime Laboratory for examination. The testimony of PO2 Ruiz clearly
establishes this requirement:
how long did it take you from the time you were introduced and then
there was somebody who will buy to Dada you said there was a transaction
already how long it took?
the plastic sachet was already with me I give [sic] my pre-arranged
signal and then introduced myself as police officer, sir.
you were not the one also who prepared for this examination to the
laboratory of this alleged selling that you have confiscated?
the investigator. You were not also present when these cases of this
two accused were presented before the inquest, you were not also
present?
was that, that you represent, as the apprehending officer because you
are the vital witness when was that if you can recall during the inquest
of this two accused?
After
the seized item was properly marked by PO2 Ruiz, it was turned over to
the investigator and thereafter to the crime laboratory for
examination. The seized item and documentary evidence showing that the
item had been forwarded and stamped received by the PNP Crime Laboratory
were presented to and offered as evidence in the RTC. These were
properly marked and admitted. [57]
In addition, the members of the buy-bust team executed their Joint
Affidavit of Apprehension immediately after the operation and arrest.
From the foregoing circumstances, it is unmistakable that there is no
break in the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drug from the time
that it came to the possession of PO2 Ruiz. At the same time, the
seized item was likewise positively identified by PO2 Ruiz in court when
it was presented. Clearly, there is no doubt that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized dangerous drug were properly preserved
by the apprehending officer, in compliance with what the law requires.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED.
The CA Decision in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03300, finding accused-appellant
Darius Bautista y Orsino @ Dada guilty of the crime charged, is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Corona, C.J., (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Del Castillo, and Perez, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo,
pp. 2-15. Penned by Associate Justice Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos and
concurred in by Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Ramon R.
Garcia.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 16-24. Penned by Judge Alejandro G. Bijasa.
[3] Rollo, pp. 3-4.
[4] Rollo, pp. 5-8; CA rollo, pp. 17-20. A video karera is a betting/coin slot machine, usually of virtual horse racing.
[5] Id. at 4; id. at 6; TSN, April 27, 2006, pp. 25-26.
[6] CA rollo, p. 17.
[7] Id. at 60; TSN, April 27, 2006, pp. 4-5.
[8] Id.; id. at 6.
[9] TSN, April 27, 2006, p. 4.
[10] Id. at 6.
[11] Id. at 16.
[12] Id. at 6 & 18.
[13] Id. at 6-7 & 19.
[14] Id. at 7 & 20.
[15] Id. at 7 & 19.
[16] Id. at 20.
[17] Id. at 19.
[18] Id. at 7, 22-23.
[19] Rollo, p. 6; CA rollo, p. 60.
[20] Id. at 6-7; id. at 59; TSN, April 20, 2006, pp. 3-5.
[21] TSN, April 20, 2006, p. 5.
[22] Id. at 3-5.
[23] Rollo, p. 7; CA rollo, p. 60; TSN, October 20, 2006, pp. 2-3.
[24] TSN, October 20, 2006, pp. 3-4.
[25] Id. at 4-5; rollo, p. 7.
[26] TSN, May 21, 2007, pp. 2-4.
[27] TSN, November 8, 2007, pp. 2-3.
[28] TSN, April 1, 2008, pp. 3-4.
[29] Id. at 7.
[30] Id. at 4-7.
[31] CA rollo, p. 24.
[32] Id. at 20.
[33] Id. at 21-22.
[34] Id. at 23.
[35] Rollo, p. 14.
[36] Id.
[37] Id. at 13.
[38] Id. at 13-14.
[39] G.R. No. 189981, March 9, 2011; citing People v. Combate, G.R. No. 189301, December 15, 2010; People v. Agudez, G.R. Nos. 138386-87, May 20, 2004, 428 SCRA 692, 705; People v. Dinglasan, G.R. No. 101312, January 28, 1997, 267 SCRA 26, 39.
[40] People v. Gabrino, supra note 39.
[41] CA rollo, pp. 21-22.
[42] Rollo, pp. 10-11.
[43] TSN, November 8, 2007, pp. 3-4.
[44] Id. at 6 & 8.
[45] Id. at 3-4, 6 & 8.
[46] TSN, May 21, 2007, pp. 3, 6-7.
[47] Id. at 8.
[48] Id. at 2-3, 6-8.
[49] TSN, April 1, 2008, pp. 5-6.
[50] CA rollo, pp. 20-21.
[51] G.R. No. 193184, February 7, 2011.
[52] People v. Pambid, G.R. No. 192237, January 26, 2011; citing People v. De Mesa, G.R. No. 188570, July 6, 2010, 624 SCRA 248 & People v. Mariacos, G.R. No. 188611, June 21, 2010, 621 SCRA 327.
[53] People v. Presas, G.R. No. 182525, March 2, 2011.
[54] RA 9165, Implementing Rules and Regulations, Sec. 21(a). (Emphasis Ours.)
[55] Cacao v. People, G.R. No. 180870, January 22, 2010, 610 SCRA 636, 644-45.
[56] TSN, April 27, 2006, pp. 4-19.
[57] Id. at 27.