The Case
This appeal assails the Decision
[1]
dated June 23, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 08364
affirming the verdict of conviction against Michael Andanar
y
Siendo alias "Kokak" (appellant) for two (2) counts of violation of
Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165), and Mary Jane
Garbo
y Mariposque (appellant), for Section 6, Article II, RA 9165.
The Proceedings Before the Trial Court
The Charge
On August 2, 2010, appellant Andanar was charged with violation of
Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 (illegal sale of dangerous drugs),
viz.:
CRIM. CASE # 17220
That on or about the 28th day of July, 2010 in the City of
Taguig, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above narned accused, without being authorized by
law to sell or otherwise dispose of any dangerous drug, did, then and
there willfully and knowingly sell, deliver, and give away to poseur
buyer PO2 Noel O. Antillion, Jr., the amount of zero point zero seven
gram of white crystalline granular substance contained in one (1) heat
sealed transparent plastic sachet, (NOA-1-280710) for and in
consideration of the amount of Php 500.00, which was found positive to
the test of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, or commonly known as "shabu",
a dangerous drug, in violation of the above cited law.[2]
CRIM. CASE# 17221
That on or about the 28th day of July, 2010 in the City of
Taguig, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above named accused, without being authorized by
law to sell or otherwise dispose of any dangerous drug, did, then and
there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell, deliver, and give away
to MORIEL GUTIERREZ, alias "PATOK" in the presence of poseur buyer PO2
Noel O. Antillon, Jr., a minute quantity of white crystalline granular
substance contained in one (1) heat sealed transparent plastic [sachet],
which substance was subsequently placed in a holder/funnel made of
aluminum foil; prior to burning/sniffing in another piece of aluminum
foil; where particles of the said substance were left in the
first-mentioned foil, (NOA-2-280710); for and in consideration of the
amount of Php 500.00; which was found positive to the test of
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, or commonly known as "shabu", a dangerous
drug, in violation of the above-cited law.[3]
while appellant Garbo was charged with violation of Section 6, Article
II of RA 9165 (illegal maintenance of a den, dive, or resort),
viz.:
CRIM. CASE # 17222
That on or about the 28th day of July, 2010 in the City of
Taguig, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, inside a house, which she
intentionally maintained as a den, dive, or resort, where dangerous
drugs were actually and habitually stored, distributed, sold or used in
any form; and where the following paraphernalia for the use of drugs
were actually and habitually stored, distributed, sold or [used] in any
form; and where the following paraphernalia [for] the. use of drugs were
found; one (1) black box; one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic
sachet; one (1) aluminum foil strip; one (1) rolled aluminum foil; one
(1) white disposable lighter; and one (1) green disposable lighter; in
violation of the above-cited law.[4]
Meantime, Moriel Gutierrez
y Del Castillo (Gutierrez) who was
charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs died. Thus, the case
against him got dismissed.
On arraignment, appellants pleaded not guilty.
[5] Joint trial ensued.
During the pre-trial, the prosecution and the defense stipulated on the following:
1) |
appellants were the same persons accused in the Information, |
|
|
2) |
the trial court had jurisdiction over the appellants, |
|
|
3) |
Police Chief Inspector Abraham Tecson duly
executed Physical Science Report No. D-260-10S which found the seized
specimen positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride.[6] |
Prosecution's Version
SPO2 Noel Antillon, Jr. (SPO2 Antillon, Jr.), SPO2 Ernesto Sanchez (SPO2
Sanchez), PO3 Vergelio Del Rosario (PO3 Del Rosario), PO2 Elmar Manuel
(PO2 Manuel), members of the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Task Force,
Taguig City, and Forensic Chemist P/Chief Inspector Abraham Tecson (P/CI
Tecson) testified for the prosecution. Their testimonies may be
summarized, in this wise:
On July 28, 2010, a confidential informant reported to their office
about illegal drug activities on Camachile Street, Western Bicutan,
Taguig City. Police Chief Major Porfirio Calagan briefed SPO2 Sanchez,
PO1 Balbin,
[7] PO3 Brion,
[8]
and SPO2 Antillon, Jr. on a buy-bust operation to be launched in the
target area. SPO2 Antillon, Jr. was assigned as poseur buyer while the
rest, as back-up members. He was also handed ten (10) pieces of P100.00
bills as buy-bust money.
[9]
After coordinating with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA),
the buy-bust team proceeded to the target area. There, SPO2 Antillon,
Jr. and the confidential informant saw Garbo in front of her house. The
confidential informant greeted her and introduced SPO2 Antillon, Jr. as
someone who wanted to buy
shabu. The confidential informant then
asked Garbo where Andanar was. She said that Andanar was fetching
something and then invited them inside her house to wait. Inside the
house, they met Gutierrez, who was also waiting for Andanar.
[10]
After about thirty (30) minutes, Andanar arrived. He asked SPO2 Antillon, Jr. how much
shabu
he wanted to buy. The latter answered P1,000.00 worth. Since he only
had two (2) plastic sachets with him, Andanar agreed to sell P500 worth
of
shabu to SPO2 Antillon, Jr. while the other, to Gutierrez.
SPO2 Antillon, Jr. handed the P500.00 buy-bust money to Andanar while
the latter, in turn, gave him a plastic sachet with white crystalline
substance. Garbo told SPO2 Antillon, Jr. that he could already use the
drug for an additional P20.00. He declined, saying he had his own pipe
in the car.
[11]
Since SPO2 Antillon, Jr. was inside Garbo's house, he could not signal
the other team members that the sale had been consummated. Thus, he
instructed the confidential informant to go outside and signal the team.
When the rest of the team arrived, SPO2 Antillon, Jr. arrested Andanar
while SPO2 Sanchez arrested Garbo and Gutierrez. SPO2 Antillon, Jr.
frisked Andanar and recovered from the latter the buy-bust money. He
also frisked Gutierrez and recovered an aluminum foil and a lighter.
[12]
The team brought appellants and Gutierrez to the police station where
the marking, inventory, and photographing were done. The team had to
leave the
situs criminis because a crowd had already gathered around.
[13]
SPO2 Antillon, Jr. handed the seized items to the case investigator PO3
Vergelio Del Rosario (PO3 Del Rosario) who prepared the following
documents: affidavit of arrest, inventory report, spot report, booking
sheets, and request for laboratory examination.
[14] SPO2 Antillon, Jr. and PO3 Del Rosario brought the specimen to the crime laboratory where it was received by PO2 Manuel.
[15]
Both the defense and the prosecution stipulated on the qualifications of
Forensic Chemist P/CI Tecson and the fact that he received subject
specimens which he tested and found positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. They also stipulated that he reduced
his findings in Physical Science Report No. D-260-105, stating thus:
x x x x
One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with markings "NOA-1-280710" containing 0.07 gram of white crystalline substance.
[O]ne (1) aluminum foil strip with markings "NOA-2-280710" containing white crystalline substance.
[O]ne (1) rolled aluminum foil with markings "NOA-3-280710" containing residue.
x x x x[16]
Finally, the parties stipulate that P/CI Tecson had no personal knowledge of the source of the drugs.
Defense's Version
Garbo testified that on July 28, 2010, she was watching a game near her
house on Camachile Street, Western Bicutan, Taguig City when SPO2
Antillon, Jr. suddenly approached her, placed his arm around her, and
told her to walk with him quietly towards a vehicle. She was made to
board the vehicle and brought to the police station where she saw
Andanar and Gutierrez. She admitted that she met Andanar once before,
but not Gutierrez.
[17]
On the other hand, Andanar testified that on the day in question, he was
at home sleeping. Three (3) men wearing civilian clothes suddenly
barged in, introduced themselves as police officers, and asked him to
bring out the supposed illegal drugs he was hiding. They also searched
his house but they did not find any illegal drugs. He was placed in
handcuffs and brought to the police station. There, he saw Garbo and
Gutierrez.
[18]
The Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
By Decision
[19] dated May 19, 2016, the trial court found appellants guilty as charged, thus:
WHEREFORE, in the premises, the accused MICHAEL ANDANAR is hereby found GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
of selling without any authority 0.07 gram of Methylamphetamine
Hydrochloride or "shabu", a dangerous drug in violation of Sec. 5, 1st par., Article II of R.A. 9165 and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and a FINE of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (PHP500,000.00) for Criminal Case Nos. 17220-D and 17221-D; and MARY JANE GARBO is hereby found GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of Violation of Section 6 of Article II of R.A. 9165 and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of TWELVE (12) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY OF IMPRISONMENT and a fine of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (PHP100,000.00) in Criminal Case No. 17222-D.
x x x x
SO ORDERED.[20]
The trial court gave full credence to the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses who were police officers performing their official functions.
The trial court found the chain of custody to have been duly
established and, thus, rejected appellants' denial and theory of frame
up.
[21]
The Proceedings Before the Court of Appeals
On appeal, appellants faulted the trial court for rendering the verdict
of conviction allegedly despite 1) the prosecution's failure to prove
the elements of illegal sale of drugs and illegal maintenance of a drug
den and 2) the alleged procedural omissions during the buy-bust
operation: a) the absence of any insulating witnesses during the
inventory and photographing of the seized items; b) the fact that the
inventory and photographing were done at the police station, not at the
place of arrest; and, c) the prosecution's failure to present the
testimony of the person who received the confiscated
shabu from the crime laboratory.
[22]
For its part, the People, through the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG), countered, in the main: 1) the elements of illegal sale of drugs
and illegal maintenance of den were all proven; 2) there was substantial
compliance with the chain of custody rule. Besides, the parties
stipulated on the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, thus, the
defense had impliedly admitted that there was no break in the chain of
custody; 3) the presumption of regularity in the performance of the
police officers' official functions prevails over appellants' bare
denial and theory of frame up.
[23]
The Ruling of the Court of Appeals
In its assailed Decision
[24] dated June 23, 2017, the Court of Appeals affirmed.
The Present Appeal
Appellants now seek affirmative relief from the Court and prays anew for
their acquittal. For the purpose of this appeal, the OSG
[25] and appellants
[26] both manifested that in lieu of supplemental briefs, they were adopting their respective briefs in the Court of Appeals.
Core Issue
Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the trial court's verdict of
conviction against Andanar for illegal sale of dangerous drugs and Garbo
for illegal maintenance of drug den, respectively?
Ruling
Sale of dangerous drugs
Andanar was charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs allegedly
committed on July 28, 2010. The governing law is RA 9165, before its
amendment in 2014.
Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 reads:
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; x x x
Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002,
implementing the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, defines
"chain of custody," as follows:
"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 the seized item shall include the identity and
signature of the person who held temporary custody of 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.
In illegal drugs cases, the drug itself constitutes the
corpus delicti
of the offense. The prosecution is, therefore, tasked to establish that
the substance illegally sold by the accused is the same substance
eventually presented in court.
[27]
To ensure the integrity of the seized drug item, the prosecution must account for each link in its chain of custody:
first, the seizure and marking of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer;
second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer;
third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and
fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court.
[28]
Here, the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody. Consider:
One, the venue for making the inventory and photograph was not
properly complied with. Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations (IRR) requires that the inventory and photograph be
conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation, thus, it must be
done at the place of the arrest.
[29]
Here, SPO2 Antillon, Jr. testified that upon appellants' arrest, they
were immediately brought to the police station where an inventory and
photographing of the seized items were conducted. He explained, however,
that a crowd had already gathered at the
situs criminis, thus, they had to go back to the police station.
In
People v. Dumanjug,
[30]
the Court rejected the buy-bust team's argument that it failed to
conduct the marking, inventory, photography of the seized drug
immediately at the place of arrest because a crowd of two hundred (200)
people have gathered creating a dangerous environment. Indeed, bare
invocation of inconvenience does not translate to compliance with the
chain of custody rule.
Two, the physical inventory and photography were not done in the
presence of a Department of Justice (DOJ) representative, a media
representative, and a local elected official.
People v. Lim[31]
stressed the importance of the presence of the three (3) insulating
witnesses or in the alternative, the prosecution must allege and prove
the reasons for their absence and show that earnest efforts were made to
secure their attendance. The Court ratiocinated:
It must be alleged and proved that the presence of the three
witnesses to the physical inventory and photograph of the illegal drug
seized was not obtained due to reason/s such as:
(1) their attendance was impossible because the place of
arrest was a remote area; (2) their safety during the inventory and
photograph of the seized drugs was threatened by an immediate
retaliatory action of the accused or any person/s acting for and in
his/her behalf; (3) the elected official themselves were involved in the
punishable acts sought to be apprehended; (4) earnest efforts to secure
the presence of a DOJ or media representative and an elected public
official within the period required under Article 125 of the Revised
Penal Code prove[d] futile through no fault of the arresting officers,
who face the threat of being charged with arbitrary detention; or (5)
time constraints and urgency of the anti drug operations, which often
rely on tips of confidential assets, prevented the law enforcers from
obtaining the presence of the required witnesses even before the
offenders could escape.
Earnest effort to secure the attendance of the necessary witnesses must be proven. People v. Ramos teaches:
It is well to note that the absence of these required witnesses does not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible. However, a justifiable reason for such failure or a showing of any genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses under Section 21 of RA 9165 must be adduced. In People v. Umipang, the Court held that the prosecution must show that earnest efforts
were employed in contacting the representatives enumerated under the
law for "a sheer statement that representatives were unavailable without
so much as an explanation on whether serious attempts were employed to
look for other representatives, given the circumstances is to be
regarded as a flimsy excuse." Verily, mere statements of unavailability,
absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses are
unacceptable as justified grounds for noncompliance. These
considerations arise from the fact that police officers are ordinarily
given sufficient time - beginning from the moment they have received the
information about the activities of the accused until the time of his
arrest - to prepare for a buy-bust operation and consequently, make the
necessary arrangements beforehand knowing full well that they would have
to strictly comply with the set procedure prescribed in Section 21 of
RA 9165. As such, police officers are compelled not only to [the] state
reasons for their non-compliance, but must in fact, also convince the
Court that they exerted earnest efforts to comply with the mandated
procedure, and that under the given circumstances, their actions were
reasonable.[32]
Here, while the prosecution admitted that marking, inventory, and
photographing were not made in the presence of a DOJ representative, a
media representative, and a local elected official, it made no effort,
at all, to explain or justify why these required witnesses were absent
nor did it show that earnest efforts were exerted to secure their
attendance.
Three, what happened to the confiscated drugs after SPO2
Antillon, Jr. and PO3 Del Rosario delivered them to the crime
laboratory? The prosecution was conspicuously silent on this point.
We note that a certain PO2 Manuel received the specimen from PO3 Del
Rosario. There was, however, a break in the chain of custody of the
seized drug because PO2 Manuel who handled the specimen was not
presented as witness.
In
People v. Burdeos,
[33]
the prosecution failed to show how the specimen was handled while under
the custody of the officer who received it and how the same was
subsequently turned over to the forensic chemist who conducted the
examination. The Court, thus, declared that such glaring gap in the
chain of custody tainted the integrity of the
corpus delicti.
Four, there was nothing in the records regarding the custody of
the seized drug from the time it was turned over to the laboratory up to
its presentation in court.
In
People v. Baltazar,
[34]
the accused was acquitted of illegal sale of dangerous drugs because
the records were bereft of any evidence as to how the illegal drugs were
brought to court. There was no showing how the alleged seized item was
stored after it was examined by the forensic chemist, who handled the
specimen after examination, and where the same was kept until it was
retrieved and presented in court.
Notably, the parties agreed to dispense with the testimony of Forensic
Chemist P/CI Tecson and instead stipulated that he was a qualified
forensic chemist and that he had no personal knowledge about the source
of the drug items but only conducted laboratory examination thereon.
People v. Miranda[35] citing
People v. Cabuhay[36] ordained that the stipulation to dispense with the testimony of the forensic chemist should include:
(1) that the forensic chemist received the seized article as
marked, properly sealed, and intact; (2) that he resealed it after
examination of the content; and (3) that he placed his own marking on
the same to ensure that it could not be tampered with pending trial.[37]
Here, the stipulation to dispense with the testimony of the Forensic
Chemist P/CI Tecson did not contain the vital pieces of information
required,
i.e., he received the seized drugs as marked, properly
sealed, and intact; he resealed the drug items after examination of the
content; and, he placed his own marking on the drug items. Absent any
testimony regarding the management, storage, and preservation of the
illegal drug allegedly seized herein after its qualitative examination,
the fourth link in the chain of custody of the said illegal drug could
not be reasonably established.
[38]
In light of the prosecution's failure to establish with moral certainty
the identity and the unbroken chain of custody of the dangerous drugs
seized from Andanar, a verdict of acquittal here is in order.
[39]
Maintenance of a drug den
For Garbo's part, she was charged with illegal maintenance of a drug den
under Section 6 of RA 9165. The offense requires the following
elements: a) that the place is a den - a place where any dangerous drug
and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical is administered,
delivered, stored for illegal purposes, distributed, sold, or used in
any form; and b) that the accused maintains the said place. It is not
enough that dangerous drugs or drug paraphernalias were found in the
place. More than a finding that the dangerous drug is being used there,
it must also be clearly shown that the accused is the maintainer or
operator or the owner of the place where the dangerous drug is used or
sold.
[40]
Here, the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that Garbo is maintaining a drug den. Consider:
First, a drug den is a lair or hideaway where prohibited or
regulated drugs are used in any form or are found. Its existence may be
proved not only by direct evidence but may also be established by proof
of facts and circumstances, including evidence of the general reputation
of the house, or its general reputation among police officers.
[41]
People v. Galicia[42] ordained that the prosecution must establish that the alleged drug den is a place where dangerous drugs are
regularly
sold to and/or used by customers of the maintainer of the den. The word
"regular" means doing the same thing in uniform intervals, or something
that is a common occurrence.
Here, PO2 Antillon, Jr. testified that Garbo invited him inside her
house where the sale of illegal drugs between him and Andanar took
place. Thereafter, Garbo offered PO2 Antillon, Jr. that he could already
use the drug he just bought for an additional fee of P20.00. If at all,
this only proves an isolated illegal drug transaction involving SPO2
Antillon, Jr., Andanar, and Garbo. There was nothing on record, however,
showing that Garbo's house was frequently used as a drug den. Neither
did the prosecution prove that Garbo's house had a general reputation as
such. Surely, the prosecution had only presented a singular occurrence
of the so-called illegal drug activity in Garbo's house. The same does
not satisfy the requirement in
Galicia. Garbo, therefore, cannot be considered a maintainer of drug den. Besides, the supposed
corpus delicti was not even established in view of the clear violation of the chain of custody rule, compromising its integrity.
Second, SPO2 Antillon, Jr. testified that while inside Garbo's house, he saw Gutierrez using
shabu, thus, making Garbo's house a drug den.
We disagree. At the moment .SPO2 Antillon, Jr. saw Gutierrez allegedly sniffing something, he only assumed it was
shabu.
More, nothing in the records show that Gutierrez underwent a laboratory
examination and was found positive for drug use. Thus, the Court will
not convict an accused,
sans any supporting evidence. Mere
assumptions or conjectures cannot substitute the required quantum of
evidence in criminal prosecution.
[43] In any case, a single isolated occasion where one sees another person sniffing
shabu
inside a residence, even if true, does not automatically convert that
residence into a den. The element of regularity is conspicuously absent.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is
GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated June 23, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 08364 is
REVERSED.
Appellant Michael Andanar
y Siendo is
ACQUITTED in
Criminal Case Nos. 17220 and 17221. The Director of the Bureau of
Conections, Muntinlupa City is ordered to a) immediately release Michael
Andanar
y Siendo from custody unless he is being held for some
other lawful cause; and b) submit his report on the action taken within
five (5) days from notice.
Appellant Mary Jane Garbo
y Mariposque is
ACQUITTED in
Criminal Case No. 17222. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections,
Muntinlupa City is ordered to a) immediately release Mary Jane Garbo
y
Mariposque from custody unless she is being held for some other lawful
cause; and b) submit his report on the action taken within five (5) days
from notice.
Let an entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED.
Perlas-Bernabe, Senior Associate Justice, (Chairperson), M. Lopez, Rosario, and
J. Lopez,
* JJ., concur.
* Designated additional member per Special Order No. 2822 dated 7 April 2021.
[1] Penned by Associate
Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta, concurred in by Associate Justice Jane
Aurora C. Lantion and Associate Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, CA
rollo, pp. 115-138.
[2] Id. at 50.
[3] Id. at 50-51.
[4] Id. at 51.
[5] Id.
[6] Id. at 52.
[7] Records do not indicate the first name of the police officer.
[8] Records do not ind1cate the first name of the police officer.
[9] CA
rollo, p. 52.
[10] Id. at 52.
[11] Id. at 52-53.
[12] Id. at 53.
[13] Id.
[14] Id. at 134.
[15] Id. at 54.
[16] Id. at 90-91.
[17] Id. at 54-55.
[18] Id. at 55.
[19] Id. at 50-57.
[20] Id. at 57.
[21] Id. at 55-56.
[22] Id. at 35-46.
[23] Id. at 91-104.
[24] Id. at 115-138.
[25] Rollo, pp. 50-52.
[26] Id. at 45-47.
[27] People v. Dela Torre, G.R. No. 225789, July 29, 2019.
[28] Id.
[29] Id.
[30] G.R. No. 235468, July 1, 2019.
[31] 879 Phil. 31, 61-63 (2018).
[32] People v. Manansala, G.R. No. 229509, July 3, 2019.
[33] G.R. No. 218434. July 17, 2019.
[34] G.R. No. 229037, July 29, 2019.
[35] G.R. No. 218126, July 10, 2019.
[36] 836 Phil. 903 (2018).
[37] People v. Miranda, supra note 35.
[38] Id.
[39] People v. Villojan, Jr., G.R. No. 239635, July 22, 2019.
[40] People v. Cariño, G.R. No. 234155, March 25, 2019.
[41] Id.
[42] 826 Phil. 119 (2018).
[43] Id. at 135.