PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ERNESTO QUEJADA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

On 31 October 1989, separate informations for the violation of Section
15, Article III of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (R.A. No. 6425 as amended)
docketed as Criminal Case No. 1036-D, and for the violation of Section 16 of
the said Act, docketed as Criminal Case No. 1037-D, were filed with the
Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Metro Manila against Ernesto Quejada and Lilia
Quejada, respectively. Both cases were
assigned to Branch 164 of the said court, which had been designated as a
Special Criminal Court, and were tried jointly because both accused were
arrested in the same buy-bust operation. After their individual pleas of not guilty had been entered during the
arraignment, trial was held. In its
Decision promulgated on 15 August 1990,^[1] the
trial court found the accused guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the respective charges against them. The dispositive portion of the decision
reads:

“In view of all the foregoing, the Court finds that the
evidence presented by the prosecution has established the guilt of both of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt of the charges as charged in the two informations filed
against them.

ACCORDINGLY, for illegally selling and delivering metamphetamine
hydrochloride, a regulated drug and known by its street name ‘shabu’ by the
herein accused Ernesto Quejada in violation of Section 15, Article III of
Republic Act No. 6425 as amended, the Court hereby imposes upon him the penalty
of life imprisonment and a fine of P20,000.00; and likewise for illegally
possessing metamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated drug which is also known
by its street name ‘shabu’, in violation of Section 16, Article III of the same
Act, the Court hereby imposes upon the accused Lilia Quejada the penalty of imprisonment
of SIX (6) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY and to pay a fine of P6,000.00.”^[2]

Only accused Ernesto Quejada, hereinafter referred to as the
Appellant, filed a notice of appeal^[3] after
his and Lilia Quejada’s motion for reconsideration^[4] was
denied by the trial court.^[5] In
criminal cases, an appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not
affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the
appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter.^[6]

The accusatory portion of the information in Criminal Case No.
1036-D against Ernesto Quejada^[7] reads
as follows:

“That on or about the 28th day of October, 1989 in the
Municipality of Pasig, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being lawfully authorized by
law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and knowingly
sell and deliver one (1) small transparent plastic bag containing 0.09 grams of metamphetamine hydrochloride also known
as ‘shabu’ a regulated drug.”

In both cases, the prosecution presented three (3) witnesses,
namely: Leslie Chambers, forensic chemist
of the PC/INP Crime Laboratory Service, Camp Crame, Pat. Benjamin Placido and
Pat. Donato Geda, both of the Pasig Police Station.

Chemist Leslie Chambers testified regarding the tests she
conducted on the items submitted by the Pasig Police Station on 30 October 1990^[8]
which were allegedly recovered from the appellant and Lilia Quejada. She declared that the “shabu”
(Exhibit “D-2”) allegedly recovered from the appellant showed
positive results to three (3) tests for metamphetamine hydrochloride; that the
“shabu” (Exhibit “D-3”) of about 0.04 grams and five (5)
glass tubings which were allegedly taken from accused Lilia Quejada also showed
positive results when tested for metamphetamine hydrochloride,^[9]
while the nine (9) pieces of aluminum foils showed negative results in the
tests conducted.^[10]

The principal witness for the prosecution was Pat. Benjamin
Placido, the poseur-buyer. He testified
thus: That on and prior to 28 October
1989, he was assigned at the Pasig Police Station and was a member of its Anti-Narcotics
Unit. When he reported for work on 28
October 1989, their Officer-In-Charge (OIC), Sgt. Florencio Caruncho, acting
upon a tip from an informant that someone was selling shabu along Lorenzo
Street, Caniogan, Barracks, Pasig, organized a buy-bust team where he (Placido)
would be the poseur-buyer. The other
members of the team were the OIC himself, Sgt. Caruncho, Cpl. Inocencio Baldon,
Pat. Donato Geda and Pat. Raul Casiño. Before they proceeded to the area, two (2) fifty (P50.00) peso bills (Exhibits
“J” and “J-1”) were marked and the serial numbers listed by
them in the police blotter. The team
proceeded to the area at around 8:30 to 8:45 o’clock in the evening. When they reached the place, they saw two
(2) persons, a male and a female, standing along the street, whom he (Placido)
identified as the appellant and his wife Lilia Quejada. He approached the appellant and asked him if
he has shabu for sale, at the same time showing him the two (2) pre-marked
fifty (P50.00) peso bills. The appellant
took the money from him and got a small transparent plastic bag (Exhibit
“D-2”) from the red bag (Exhibit “G”) of Lilia
Quejada. He then examined the plastic
bag and after ascertaining that it contained shabu, he gave the hand signal to
his companions who immediately approached them, arrested the appellant and his
wife, and brought them to the police headquarters. Inside the bag carried by Lilia Quejada was shabu (Exhibit
“D-1”).^[11]

Pat. Donato Geda testified that he was the investigator assigned
to the incident in question and that he prepared the affidavit of the arresting
officer, Pat. Placido, based on the facts narrated to him by the latter, and
the letter request sent to the PC/INP Crime Laboratory (PCCL) for examination
of the evidence taken from the appellant and Lilia Quejada. He stated that the person who submitted the
items and letter-request to the PCCL was Cpl. Baldon and that the money taken
from the appellant was turned over to him for safekeeping. He corroborated the testimony of Pat.
Placido on the preparation of the marked money and the entry of such fact in
the police blotter before the buy-bust operation was conducted.^[12]

The defense presented both the appellant and Lilia Quejada. The latter testified thus: That on 28 October 1989 at about 8:30 o’clock in the evening,
she and her husband were standing along Lorenzo Street, Caniogan, Pasig,
waiting for a ride. The street was
illuminated by street lamps, there were several people along the street and
vehicles were passing by.^[13] At
that time, her husband was talking with an acquaintance when suddenly Jojo
Santiago, whom she later knew to be a policeman, approached them from the
opposite side of the road followed by another man. Santiago held the hands of her husband and when she asked him
why, Santiago uttered, “Wala. Basta sumama ka.“ The other man poked a gun at
them, began to search their bags and then handcuffed them. Santiago and his companion hailed a
passenger jeepney where two (2) other men joined them. They were brought to the investigation room
of the Narcotics Unit of the police in the
Municipal Hall of Pasig. There, they
were joined inside the room by
Pat. Placido who told them that their case can be settled for a fee and that he
was giving them two (2) days or until 30 October 1989 to settle the matter.^[14]

Appellant’s testimony^[15]
corroborates that of Lilia Quejada.

In this appeal,
which this Court accepted on 15 April 1991,^[16] the
appellant raises the following assignment of errors in his Brief:^[17]

“First Assignment
of Error:

THE TRIAL COURT GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT FINDING THE PROSECUTION’S
VERSION OF THE ALLEGED ‘BUY-BUST’ OPERATION AS UNNATURAL, IMPROBABLE,
INCREDIBLE AND DEFIES LOGIC.

Second Assignment of
Error:

THE TRIAL COURT GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT FINDING AS FATALLY DEFECTIVE THE
UTTER FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PRESENT THE ALLEGED INFORMANT WHO ALLEGEDLY
TIPPED-OFF AND WHICH LED TO THE ALLEGED ‘BUY-BUST’ OPERATION.

Third Assignment of
Error:

THE TRIAL COURT GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT RULING THAT THE IRRECONCILABLE
AND UNEXPLAINED CONTRADICTIONS AND INCONSISTENCIES OF THE PRINCIPAL PROSECUTION
WITNESSES CAST DOUBT ON THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Fourth Assignment of
Error:

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING UNDUE AND UNWARRANTED
RELIANCE ON THE PRESUMPTION OF THE REGULARITY OF THE PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL
FUNCTIONS OVER THAT OF THE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROVIDED PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
OF THE APPELLANT.

Fifth Assignment of
Error:

THE TRIAL COURT GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT RULING THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT
AND WIFE WERE UNLAWFULLY ARRESTED, SEARCHED OF THEIR BELONGINGS AND CUSTODIALLY
INVESTIGATED.”^[18]

In the first and second assigned errors, the appellant claims
that the alleged buy-bust operation was brought about by a tip phoned in by an
informant whose identity was never revealed and who was not presented in court
by the prosecution, hence, whatever information he had provided to the police
has no evidentiary value, being merely self-serving and hearsay in nature. Moreover, it is incredible and unnatural for
the police officers to proceed to the target area without apprising themselves
with the basic information regarding the identity or, at least, the description
of their suspect and once there, to immediately pounce upon the first person
they see in the target area, who happened to be the appellant and his wife standing in well-lighted and
moderately busy street. Finally,
appellant argues that it is unbelievable that he would readily take the money
from Pat. Placido and give to the latter the prohibited drug in plain view of
the public.

In his third assigned error, the appellant enumerates what he
claims are irreconcilable and unexplained inconsistencies and contradictions in
the testimony of Pat. Placido, to wit:

1.   Pat. Placido gave different names on various
occasions when asked who the other members of the buy-bust team were. Placido’s testimony that Pat. Geda was also
a member of the buy-bust team was belied by Pat. Geda himself.

2.   Pat. Placido gave inconsistent narrations on
when the drugs were discovered from the red bag (Exhibit “G”)
allegedly carried by Lilia Quejada. When he was first presented, he testified:

“Q  What happened after you gave the signal?

A    They approached us, Sir.

Q   By the way, who handed to you the shabu taken
inside Exhibit “G”?

A    Ernie, Sir.

Q   And how about Lilia, what was she doing at
that time?

A    At that time, sir, while the incident was
going on, Lilia Quejada was just standing there. However, after I gave the signal to my companions and they approached
us, one inspected the bag that Lilia Quejada was carrying at that
time and we found out that the bag
contained paraphernalia. (TSN, March 20, 1990, p.7)”

But when he was presented anew, he
declared:

“Q  When you said containing shabu, how did you
come to know that it contains shabu?

x x x

A    We came to know that this bag Exhibit
“G” contains shabu, sir, because after we took them to our headquarters, our investigator
opened Exhibit “G’
and that was the time
when I came to know
that the bag is containing
(sic) shabu. (TSN, April 3, 1990, pp.
12-13).”

3.   Placido gave differing accounts as to who
placed marks on the buy-bust money. Thus, when he testified for the first time on 20 March 1990, he said:

“Witness:

A    The investigator, sir, was
the one who made this marking, (Illegible signature, then 10-28-89 and mark money, notation, mark
money). However, Sir, the serial numbers AU547890 was already entered in
our log book before the operation, Sir. (TSN, March 20, 1990, p. 14)”

But when he took the witness stand again,
he contradicted his previous testimony, thus:

“Q  And there is an Initial
here and a date 10-28-90 and the
word mark money on Exhibit “H”
on the lower portion of the money marked as Exhibit “H” who placed
this marking here?

A    I was the one who
placed it, Sir. (TSN,
April 3, 1990, p. 6)”

4.   Pat. Placido gave varying testimonies on when
he placed the markings on the buy-bust money. In his first testimony, he said that the markings were made after the
operation,^[19]
but when he was presented again, he answered that the markings were made before
they proceeded to the target area.^[20]

5.   In the affidavit^[21]
of Pat. Placido, he stated that “their office received reports from
confidential informants regarding drug pushing activities operating within the
vicinity of Brgy. Caniogan, Pasig, Metro Manila”; that they conducted a
surveillance “to check the veracity of said report and after a week long
of covert operation said report yielded positive result.” However, when he
testified in court, he said that an informant had told them on the same day
that they conducted the buy-bust operation that a person was selling shabu;
there was, therefore, no surveillance made.

The fourth and fifth assigned errors are conclusions drawn from
the appellant’s disquisitions on the preceding assigned errors.

At the bottom of these grievances are the factual findings of the
trial court which go into the issue of credibility of witnesses. We shall then take up the errors
jointly. Deeply embedded in our
jurisprudence is the rule that when the issue of credibility of witnesses is
concerned, appellate courts will generally not disturb the findings of facts of the trial court
considering that the latter is in a better position to decide the question,
having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner
of testifying during the trial, unless certain facts of substance and value
have been plainly overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of
the case.^[22]
The trial court’s finding on the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses is
entitled to great respect unless and until they are clearly shown to be
arbitrary.^[23]

We have carefully
reviewed the records of this case and the testimonies of the witnesses and We
agree with the trial court’s finding that the guilt of the appellant was proven
beyond reasonable doubt. We are also
convinced that the appellant was caught in flagrante selling the regulated drug commonly known as shabu during the buy-bust
operation conducted on 28 October 1989. While it may be true that there are inconsistencies in the testimony of
the principal prosecution witness, Pat. Placido, like those pointed out by the appellant regarding the composition
or number of the members of the buy-bust team, the time when the buy-bust money
was marked and by whom and when the confidential information was received, they
pertain to minor and insubstantial matters which do not affect the proof of the
elements of the offense charged. Discrepancies or inconsistencies on minor matters do not impair the
essential integrity of the prosecution’s evidence as a whole or reflect on the
witnesses’ honesty.^[24]

In a prosecution for
illegal sale of prohibited drugs or, as in this case, of regulated drugs, what
is essential is proof of the consummation of the sale.^[25] Whether the buyer is a stranger or not is
immaterial. In real life, small-level
drug pushers sell their prohibited wares to customers who have the money to pay
for the drug, be they strangers or not. What matters is not the existing familiarity between the buyer and the
drug pusher, but rather the agreement and the acts constituting the sale and
delivery of the prohibited or regulated drug.^[26]

That the buy-bust
operation transpired in a public place does not make the operation improbable
or unnatural. In People vs. Paco,^[27]
this Court stated:

“Drug pushing when done on a small level as in this case
belongs to that class of crimes that may be committed at anytime and at any
place. After the offer to buy is
accepted and the exchange is made, the illegal transaction is completed in a
few minutes. The fact that the parties
are in a public place and in the presence of other people may not always
discourage them from pursuing their illegal trade as these factors may even
serve to camouflage the same. Hence,
the Court has sustained the conviction of drug pushers caught selling illegal
drugs in a billiard hall, in front of a store, along a street at 1:45 p.m., and
in front of a house.”^[28]

Pat. Placido, who was himself the poseur-buyer, was categorical,
direct and firm on both occasions when he took the witness stand. He categorically testified that the
appellant sold him one (1) deck of shabu during the buy-bust operation. The first time he was presented in court on
20 March 1990, he testified as follows:

“FISCAL:

Q   Mr. Witness, how did your group conduct the
operation along Lorenzo Street, Barracks, Caniogan, Pasig, Metro Manila?

A    I was tasked to act as poseur-buyer, Sir.

Q   What have you done when you were tasked as
the poseur-buyer?

A    At the time, Sir, the suspect was standing
accompanied by a female person.

Q   When you said the suspect was standing with a
female companion, to whom are you referring to?

A    The suspect is one alias Ernie, Sir.

x x x

Q   What is the real name of this Ernie?

A    Ernesto Quejada y Gallego, Sir.

Q   How about the woman companion of Ernesto
Quejada. What is the real name of this
woman, if you recall?

A    Lilia Quejada y Santo Romano, Sir.

x x x

Q   When you said that you have seen these two
persons standing on the place where you conducted the buy-bust operation, what
have you done when you have seen (sic) them?

A    I approached Ernie and asked him if it would
be possible for me to buy one deck of suspected shabu?

Q   And what did they do upon informing them that
you are going to buy one deck of suspected shabu?

A    He asked me, Sir, if I have some money with
me.

Q   What happened when you were asked if you have
money?

A    I took hold of the two-50 peso bills and
showed them to him.

Q   When you said you showed them to him, to whom
are you referring to?

A    To Ernie, Sir.

Q   What happened when you showed them the two-50
peso bills?

A    After he has taken hold of the two 50-peso
bills, he got this red bag containing suspected shabu.

Q   I am showing to you a red bag which is marked
as Exhibit “G”. Tell the
Honorable Court what relation has this with regards to the red bag which you
said the accused handed to you?

A    This contained the shabu. He got the stuff from this Exhibit
“G”.

x x x

Q   By the way, who handed to you the shabu taken
inside this Exhibit “G”?

A    Ernie, Sir.

Q   And how about Lilia, what was she doing at
the time?

A    At the time, Sir, while this incident was
going on, Lilia Quejada was just standing there. However, after I gave the signal to my companions and they
approached us, we inspected the bag that Lilia Quejada was carrying at the time
and we found out that the bag contained paraphernalia.”^[29]

When he was presented again on 3 April
1990, he reiterated his previous testimony in this wise:

“Q  When you act (sic) as the poseur-buyer, what
did you do if there be any?

A    I pretended to be a buyer, Sir.

Q   How did you pretend to be a buyer?

A    I saw them standing and I approached them,
Sir.

Q   To whom are you referring when you said them?

A    Ernesto Quejada and Lilia Quejada, Sir.

x x x

Q   When you saw these persons whom you
identified a while ago, what did you do, if there be any?

A    I approached them and asked them if they
have shabu, Sir.

Q   What happened when you asked them if they have
shabu?

A    I showed them the money, the two-50 peso
bills, Sir.

x x x

FISCAL:

You
said that you have showed these two-50 peso bills to the accused. To whom among these two accused did you show
these money?

A    To Ernie Quejada, Sir.

Q   And after you showed these two-50 peso bills
to Ernesto Quejada, what happened next if there be any?

A    He got the two-50 peso bills from me and
after that he took out something from his companion.

Q   And what [was] this something that he took
from his companion?

A    A transparent bag containing shabu.

Q   After he handed to you this transparent
plastic bag containing shabu, what happened next, if there be any?

A    I examined the transparent plastic tea bag
given to me to determine whether it really contains shabu. After that, Sir, as you know, my companions
were already positioned in different places and after ascertaining that it is
really shabu I gave them a hand signal.”^[30]

Appellant cannot take refuge under the mantle of People vs.
Ale,^[31]
People vs. Fernando,^[32]
People vs. Rojo,^[33]
People vs. Guinto^[34]
and People vs. Salcedo,^[35] cases wherein We reversed the judgments
of the trial courts convicting the appellants. Said cases stand on different factual settings from that in this
appeal. In each of the said cases,
except in People vs. Fernando, the
poseur-buyer, who alone could testify on the transaction between himself and
the accused, was not presented as a witness. In People vs. Fernando,^[36] while the poseur-buyer was presented as
a witness, he was not categorical in saying whether he was able to buy the
prohibited drug from the accused. We
said therein:

“This same witness [alleged poseur-buyer, Conde] testified
that he was unable to buy marijuana from the defendant-appellant in the
afternoon of October 28, 1983, but
NARCOM agents Rodolfo Aquino and Norberto Francia declared under oath that he
did.”

In People vs. Ale,^[37] We
noted that:

“Sgt. Binan testified that he and Sgt. Rosaroso observed the
alleged sale of the marijuana cigarettes between the appellant and the
poseur-buyer from a distance of some ten to fifteen meters. At that distance, Sgt. Rosaroso testified
that they could see the appellant and the poseur-buyer very well. However, Rosaroso testified on two occasions
that their knowledge of the alleged consummation of the sale came only from a
hand-signal from the poseur-buyer. What
transpired between the alleged buyer and seller, how the sticks of marijuana
changed hands, and whether or not the four sticks introduced in court were
actually the sticks supposedly purchased at that time is unknown.”

In People vs. Rojo,^[38] this
Court held:

“These are the facts as found by the trial court which show
that none of the prosecution witnesses actually saw the appellant deliver the alleged
bag of flowering tops of marijuana which was allegedly sold to the
informant. It also indicates that they
did not see the informant pay the alleged consideration of the sale with a
10-peso bill. They just assumed that
the transaction was consummated upon a signal from the informant. There is, therefore, no direct evidence,
much less conclusive proof, to establish the alleged unlawful sale of marijuana
being pinned on the appellant.”

In People vs. Salcedo,^[39] this Court gave significance to the
inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, and the
non-presentation of the alleged poseur-buyer.

And in People vs.
Guinto,^[40] We noted:

“No wonder Vitug’s [a member of the buy-bust team but not the
poseur-buyer] testimony was conflicting and confusing if not concocted. As the Solicitor General notes, this witness
offered no less than four inconsistent versions of how the crime was committed
by the accused-appellants, all of which analyzed together, reflected on his
credibility.”

There is no uniform mode of conducting a buy-bust operation. Usually, the suspects are identified or at
least, described by the informant; however, there are cases where no such
identity or description is given, but information
regarding his “territory” or the usual place where he conducts his
trade is supplied. Information that
there would be a transaction involving the purchase and sale of marijuana at
around 5:00 o’clock of the same day at a particular place,^[41]
that there was rampant drug trafficking in the vicinity of a particular area,^[42]
that drug pushers are roaming around at a specific place,^[43]
or that a person was selling marijuana at a certain street^[44]
were deemed sufficient for police officers to conduct a buy-bust
operation. In the instant case, the
information furnished was that someone was selling shabu along Lorenzo Street;
the police officers deemed such information adequate to conduct a buy-bust
operation.

The informant did not have to testify because he was not a
participant in that operation and would have been incompetent to narrate the
details thereof.^[45]
Hence, the second assigned error must perforce fail. In any event, since the appellant was in fact caught in flagrante, the issue on the presentation of the
informant was rendered academic, if not irrelevant.

The presumption has always been that police officers are
performing their official functions when they conduct buy-bust operations and
entrap and arrest violators.^[46] In
the absence of any ill motive on their part to testify falsely against the accused,
such a presumption must prevail against the bare denial of the accused. In this case, both accused admitted that
they do not know the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation and
that they had no misunderstanding with any of them.^[47]
Hence, there is no reason for these officers to testify falsely against
them. The testimony of the appellant
regarding the alleged attempt of Pat. Placido to extort money from them in
exchange for the dropping of the charges is a delayed afterthought which is
easily concocted. If this were true,
the accused and his wife should have filed the appropriate criminal and
administrative charges against Placido.

Having thus ruled that there was a successful buy-bust operation
during which the appellant was caught in
flagrante selling and
delivering shabu to the poseur-buyer, Pat. Placido, the appellant could be —
as in fact he was — lawfully arrested without a warrant pursuant to Section 5,
Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. The
search, being merely an incident to the lawful arrest, cannot be stigmatized as
unlawful. Section 12, Rule 126 of the
Rules of Court explicitly provides:

“SEC. 12. Search incident to lawful arrest. — A person lawfully arrested may be searched
for dangerous weapon or anything which may be used as proof of the commission
of an offense, without a search warrant.”

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Pasig, Branch 164, in Criminal Case No. 1036-D is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Feliciano, (Chairman), Bidin, Romero, and Melo, JJ., concur.

---

^[1]
Original Records (OR), Crim. Case No. 1036-D, 166-178. Per Judge Apolonio R. Chavez, Jr. The decision is dated 13 August 1990.

^[2]
OR, Crim. Case No. 1036-D, 178.

^[3]
Id., 198.

^[4]
Id., 184-196.

^[5]
Id., 197.

^[6]
Section 11(a), Rule 122, 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure.

^[7]
OR, Crim. Case No. 1036-D, 1.

^[8]
TSN, 9 March 1990, 15.

^[9] Id., 9.

^[10]
Id., 11.

^[11]
TSN, 3 April 1990, 5-13.

^[12]
TSN, 30 March 1990, 5-6; 7; 18.

^[13]
TSN, 15 June 1990, 3-4.

^[14]
TSN, 15 June 1990, 4-8.

^[15]
TSN, 22 June 1990, 8-11.

^[16]
Rollo, 23.

^[17]
Id., 26-62.

^[18]
Rollo, 29-30.

^[19]
TSN, 20 March 1990, 12-13.

^[20]
TSN, 3 April 1990, 7.

^[21]
OR, Crim. Case No. 1036-D, 164.

^[22]
People vs. Garcia, 89 SCRA 440 [1979]; People vs. Bautista, 92 SCRA 465 [1979]; People vs.
Abejueda, 92 SCRA 503 [1979]; People vs. Simon, 209 SCRA 148 [1992].

^[23]
People vs. Caldito, 182 SCRA 66 [1990]; People vs. Linsangan, 195
SCRA 784 [1991]; People vs. Mandapat, 196 SCRA 157 [1991].

^[24]
People vs. Bernardino, 193 SCRA 448 [1991].

^[25]
People vs. Catan, 205 SCRA 235
[1992]; People vs. Dekingco, 189 SCRA 512 [1990]; People vs.
Marcos, 185 SCRA 154 [1990].

^[26]
People vs. Madriaga, 211 SCRA 698 [1992], citing People vs.
Sanchez, 173 SCRA 305 [1989]; People vs. Tejada, 170 SCRA 497 [1989];
People vs. Rodriguez, 172 SCRA 742
[1989]; People vs. Borja, 182 SCRA 581 [1990]; and People vs.
Fernandez, 209 SCRA 1 [1992].

^[27]
170 SCRA 681, 689 [1989].

^[28]
Citing People vs. Sarmiento, 147 SCRA 252 [1987]; People vs. Rubio, 142 SCRA 329 [1986]; People vs.
Toledo, 140 SCRA 259 [1985]; and People vs. Policarpio, 158 SCRA 85
[1988]. See also, People vs.
Garcia, 198 SCRA 603 [1991].

^[29]
TSN, 20 March 1990, 5-7.

^[30]
TSN, 3 April 1990, 4-5; 9.

^[31]
145 SCRA 50 [1986].

^[32]
156 SCRA 35 [1987].

^[33]
175 SCRA 119 [1989].

^[34]
184 SCRA 287 [1990].

^[35]
195 SCRA 345 [1991].

^[36]
Supra. at 41.

^[37]
Supra. at 59.

^[38]
Supra. at 128.

^[39]
Supra.

^[40]
Supra. at 290.

^[41]
People vs. Bati, 189 SCRA 97 [1990].

^[42]
People vs. Mariano, 191 SCRA 136 [1990].

^[43]
People vs. William, 209 SCRA 808 [1992].

^[44]
People vs. De Jesus, 205 SCRA 383 [1992].

^[45]
People vs. Carpio, 207 SCRA 569 [1992].

^[46]
People vs. Linsangan, 195 SCRA 784 [1991]; People vs. Ramos, 203
SCRA 237 [1991].

^[47]
TSN, 22 June 1990, 5.