FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 231799. September 22, 2020.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SALVADOR

P. JAVIER, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution
dated September 22, 2020 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 231799 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SALVADOR
P. JAVIER
The Case
This appeal assails the Decision 1 dated December 6, 2016 of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 07949 entitled "People of the Philippines v.
Salvador Javier y Padua" affirming appellant's conviction for violation of
Section 5 and Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165) 2 and
violation of Section 28 (a) Republic Act No. 10591 (RA 10591). 3
Proceedings Before the Trial Court
The Charge and Plea
Under separate Informations, appellant Salvador Javier was
respectively charged with violation of Section 28 (a) of RA 10591 (unlawful
possession of firearms and ammunitions) and Section 5 (illegal sale of
dangerous drugs) and Section 11 (illegal possession of dangerous drugs),
Article II of RA 9165, viz.:
CRIM CASE No. 21812-2013-C
That on or about 9 December 2013, in Calamba City, Laguna [,]
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, without any authority of law, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in in his possession,
custody and control one [1] improvised shotgun and five (5) pieces
12-gauge live ammunitions, in violation of the aforementioned law.
CRIM CASE No. 21813-2013-C
That on or about 9 December 2013, in Calamba City, Laguna[,]
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, without any authority of law, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession,
custody and control one (1) piece heat-sealed transparent plastic
sachet containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, otherwise known
as "shabu," a dangerous drug, weighing 0.08 gram, in violation of the
aforementioned law.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 CRIM CASE No. 21814-2013-C
That on or about 9 December 2013, in Calamba City, Laguna[,]
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, without any authority of law, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to a poseur
buyer [one] (1) piece heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet
containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, otherwise known as
"shabu," a dangerous drug, weighing 0.10 gram, in violation of the
aforementioned law.
On arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty to all charges. Joint trial
ensued.
Prosecution's Version
SPO1 Apolinario C. Naredo, Jr. (SPO1 Naredo, Jr.) testified that on
December 9, 2013, he received information that a certain Dodie later
identified as appellant was selling illegal drugs at Sitio Villa Silangan, Brgy.
Canlubang, Calamba City. On the basis of this information, Police Senior
Inspector (P/S Insp.) Rogel Sarreal (P/S Insp. Sarreal) formed a buy-bust
operation on appellant. The buy-bust team was composed of SPO1 Naredo,
Jr. as poseur buyer, PO2 Cuevas, PO2 Requinto, Police Insp. Sarreal, and PO3
Castillo as members. P/S Insp. Sarreal gave SPO1 Naredo, Jr. The buy-bust
money consisted of three (3) One Hundred Peso bills.
After coordinating with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
(PDEA), the buy-bust team proceeded to the target area. There, SPO1
Naredo, Jr. and the confidential informant met appellant. The confidential
informant introduced SPO1 Naredo, Jr. to appellant as his friend. Appellant
asked SPO1 Naredo, Jr. how much drugs he wanted to buy, to which the
latter replied Three Hundred Pesos (P300.00). Appellant then invited SPO1
Naredo, Jr. and the confidential informant inside his house. Once inside, he
asked SPO1 Naredo, Jr. again how much drugs he intended to buy. SPO1
Naredo, Jr. repeated Three Hundred Peso (P300.00) worth. Appellant stepped
out of his house to fetch something. While appellant was outside, SPO1
Naredo, Jr. noticed an improvised shotgun on top of a cabinet inside the
house.
After a few minutes, appellant returned. He asked SPO1 Naredo, Jr.
once again how much drugs he wanted to buy. SPO1 Naredo, Jr. confirmed
his previous answer and handed appellant the buy-bust money worth Three
Hundred Pesos (P300.00). In exchange, appellant gave SPO1 Naredo, Jr. a
small plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. SPO1 Naredo, Jr.
called P/S Insp. Sarreal to inform him that the sale had been consummated.
When the rest of the buy-bust team arrived, SPO1 Naredo, Jr. arrested
appellant. He frisked appellant and recovered from the latter the buy-bust
money and another plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance
from his pocket. SPO1 Naredo, Jr. also confiscated the improvised shotgun
loaded with ammunitions he found on top of the cabinet inside appellant's
home.
SPO1 Naredo, Jr. marked the confiscated items inside appellant's
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 home. The team later went to the barangay hall where they did the
inventory in the presence of Barangay Councilor Larry Marasigan. PO2
Cuevas took pictures during the inventory. Thereafter, the team returned to
the police station where the request for laboratory examination was
prepared.
SPO1 Naredo, Jr. brought the specimens and request for examination to
the Regional Crime Laboratory Office, Camp Vicente Lim, Calamba City. The
same were received by PO1 Durwin who turned them over to Forensic
Chemist Police Chief Inspector (PCI) Donna Villa P. Huelgas (PCI Huelgas).
Both the defense and the prosecution stipulated on the qualifications of
Forensic Chemist PCI Huelgas and the fact that she received the specimens
which she tested and found positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a
dangerous drug. They also stipulated that she reduced her findings in
Chemistry Report No. D-892-13.
The prosecution further submitted a Certification dated March 30, 2015
issued by the Philippine National Police Firearms and Explosives Office Civil
Security Group that appellant was not a licensed or registered firearm
holder.
Defense's Version
Appellant, on the other hand, testified that on December 9, 2013,
around 4 o'clock in the afternoon, he was at the back of his house selling fish
balls with his wife when a white van suddenly arrived. Six (6) persons
alighted from the vehicle and introduced themselves as police officers. They
handcuffed him and asked where his house was. Four (4) of the men
searched his house while the two (2) ordered him to bring out the shabu .
When he failed to bring out any shabu, he got punched in his stomach. The
police officers brought him to the barangay hall where one of the police
officers brought out things and declared that the same were seized from
him. Thereafter, he was brought to the police station.
Maximo Dela Cruz, appellant's neighbor, corroborated the latter's
testimony.
The Ruling of the RTC
By Judgment 4 dated November 16, 2015, the trial court rendered a
verdict of conviction, thus:
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING , in Criminal Case No. 21812-
2013-C, the Court finds the accused, SALVADOR JAVIER y PADUA ,
GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of violation of Section 28 (a) of
Republic Act 10591. He is hereby sentenced to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of SIX (6) YEARS and EIGHT
(8) MONTHS, as minimum, to SEVEN (7) YEARS AND FOUR (4)
MONTHS, as maximum.
In Criminal Case No. 21813-2013-C, the Court finds the
a c c u s e d , SALVADOR JAVIER y PADUA , GUILTY BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT of violation of Section 11, paragraph 2(3),
Article II of Republic Act 9165. He is hereby sentenced to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of TWELVE (12) YEARS and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 ONE (1) DAY, as minimum, to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS, as maximum,
and to PAY A FINE of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P300,000.00)
PESOS.
In Criminal Case No. 21814-2013-C, the Court finds the
a c c u s e d , SALVADOR JAVIER y PADUA , GUILTY BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic
Act 9165. The accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of
LIFE IMPRISONMENT and TO PAY A FINE OF FIVE HUNDRED
THOUSAND (P500,000.00) PESOS.
xxx xxx xxx
SO ORDERED. 5

The trial court gave full credence to the testimony of the prosecution
witness who was a police officer performing 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.
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, illegal possession of dangerous drugs, and
unlawful possession of firearms and ammunitions 2) the alleged procedural
omissions during the buy-bust operation: a) the absence of media and
Department of Justice (DOJ) representatives during the inventory and
photographing of the seized items; and b) the fact that the inventory and
photographing were done at the barangay hall, not at the place of arrest.
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, illegal
possession of dangerous drugs, and unlawful possession of firearms and
ammunitions were all proven; 2) there was substantial compliance with the
chain of custody rule; and, 3) the presumption of regularity in the
performance of the police officers' official functions prevails over appellant's
bare denial and theory of frame up.
The Ruling of the Court of Appeals
In its assailed Decision 6 dated December 6, 2016, the Court of Appeals
affirmed with modification, thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is
hereby DENIED. The Judgment dated November 16, 2015 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 37, Calamba City in Criminal Case
Nos. 21812-2013-C, 21813-2013-C and 21814-2013-C is AFFIRMED
with MODIFICATION in that the crime of illegal possession of
firearm, accused-appellant Salvador Javier y Padua is meted the
indeterminate sentence of six (6) years and eight (8) months of
prision mayor in its minimum period, as minimum, to nine (9) years
and four (4) months of prision mayor in its medium period, as
maximum.
SO ORDERED. 7

The Present Appeal

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Appellant now seeks affirmative relief from the Court and prays anew
for his acquittal. For the purpose of this appeal, the OSG 8 and appellant 9
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 appellant for violation of Section 5 and Section 11 of RA
9165, and violation of Section 28 (a) RA 10591?
Ruling
We acquit.
Illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs
Appellant was charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs and illegal
possession of dangerous drugs allegedly committed on December 9, 2013.
The governing law is RA 9165 before its amendment in 2014.
Section 21 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 the offense. The prosecution is, therefore, tasked to establish that the
substance illegally possessed by the accused is the same substance
presented in court. 10 The chain of evidence is constructed by proper exhibit
handling, storage, labelling, and recording, and must exist from the time the
evidence is found until the time it is offered in evidence. 11
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. 12
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 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. 13
Here, SPO1 Naredo, Jr. testified that upon appellant's arrest, he was
brought to the barangay hall where the seized items were inventoried and
photographed. He failed to explain, however, why the same were done at a
place other than the place of arrest.
In People v. Dela Torre , 14 the inventory was likewise conducted at
the barangay hall, without any explanation as to the distance from the
nearest police station or nearest office of the apprehending team. The Court
considered this as a breach in the chain of custody.
Two, Section 21 of RA 9165 requires the inventory and photographing
to be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the
items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain
required witnesses, namely, "a representative from the media and the
Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official." 15
People v. Lim 16 stressed the importance of the presence of the three
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 explained:
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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 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 antidrug
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 non-compliance.
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
noncompliance, 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. 17
The law requires the presence of these witnesses primarily to ensure
not only compliance with the chain-of-custody rule but also to remove any
suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. 18
Here, while the prosecution admitted that marking, inventory, and
photographing were not made in the presence of a DOJ representative and
media representative, 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, there was no evidence showing how the confiscated drug was
handled after SPO1 Naredo, Jr. delivered it to the crime laboratory. We note
that a certain PO1 Durwin received the specimen from SPO1 Naredo, Jr.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 There was, however, a break in the chain of custody of the seized drug
because PO1 Durwin who supposedly received the specimen was not
presented as witness.
I n People v. Burdeos , 19 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.
Finally, there was nothing in the records showing who held the seized
drug and how it was handled or stored from the time it was turned over to
the laboratory up to its presentation in court.
In People v. Baltazar , 20 the accused was acquitted of illegal sale of
dangerous drugs because the records are 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 Abraham Huelgas and instead stipulated that she was a qualified
forensic chemist and that she had no personal knowledge about the source
of the drug items but only conducted laboratory examination thereon.
People v. Miranda citing People v. Cabuhay ordained that the parties'
stipulation to dispense with the testimony of the forensic chemist should
include:
x x x (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. 21
Here, the parties' stipulation to dispense with the testimony of the
Forensic Chemist PCI Huelgas did not contain the vital pieces of information
required, i.e., she received the seized drugs as marked, properly sealed, and
intact; she resealed the drug items after examination of the content; and,
she 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. 22
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 appellant, a verdict of acquittal here is in order. 23
Unlawful possession of firearms and ammunitions
To sustain a conviction for unlawful possession of firearms and
ammunitions, the following elements must concur: 1) the firearm subject of
the offense exists; and 2) the accused who possessed or owned that firearm
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 had no corresponding license for it. 24

Here, the prosecution presented SPO1 Naredo Jr.'s testimony that he

saw the improvised shot gun on top of a drawer inside appellant's house. It
also offered in evidence a Certification dated March 30, 2015 issued by the
Philippine National Police Firearms and Explosives Office Civil Security Group
stating that appellant was not a licensed or registered firearm holder. On the
basis of the foregoing, the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals,
found appellant guilty of unlawful possession of firearms and ammunitions.
De Guzman v. People 25 held:
The Regional Trial Court was quick to conclude that the first
element was shown merely when the prosecution presented a .38
caliber revolver and ammunition, and had them identified by SPO1
Estera. Offering nothing but a singular paragraph as reasoning, it
stated:
In the instant case, the prosecution proved beyond
reasonable doubt the elements of the crime. The subject
firearm and ammunitions recovered from the accused
were duly presented to the Court and identified by SPO1
Estera, the one who arrested the accused. The same were
marked as Exhibits "C" and "D" to "D-4".
On the second element, the Regional Trial Court noted not only
a Certification issued by the Firearms and Explosive Division of the
Philippine National Police belying petitioner's license or registration to
possess, but also petitioner's own declaration that he had no such
license to possess a .38 caliber revolver:
[A]ccused even admitted in his testimony that he
has no license to own, possess or carry any caliber .38 or
ammunition which are the subject matter of this case.
xxx xxx xxx
x x x It was, therefore, inadequate for it to have relied on the
single testimony of the police officer whose credibility had been put
into question not only with respect to the veracity and accuracy of his
version of events leading to petitioner's arrest, but even with respect
to a supposed prior vendetta against petitioner, and an attempt to
extort from him. x x x
This is not to say that petitioner's own allegations against SPO1
Estera are all true. Still, the requisite of moral certainty demanded
that petitioner's reservations against SPO1 Estera be addressed. In
what amounted to a contest between two (2) vastly different
accounts, the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not
have been met by the prosecution by wagering its case on no one but
SPO1 Estera. (Underscoring supplied).
So must it be in the case at bar. The lone testimony of a police officer
who claimed to have seen and found the unlicensed gun inside appellant's
house on the same occasion the supposed buy bust operation was launched
cannot stand alone to support a verdict of conviction for unlawful possession
of unlicensed firearm against appellant. In the words of De Guzman v.
People "(it) was, therefore, inadequate for it to have relied on the single
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 testimony of the police officer whose credibility had been put into question"
not only to the veracity of the so called buy-bust operation, but most
important, to his compliance with the rule of laws.
On another point, the alleged drugs and firearm were seized in a
singular instance, i.e., the buy-bust operation. As discussed, the
prosecution's factual allegations were unreliable to warrant a finding of guilt
for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The same,
therefore, should be applied to the charge of unlawful possession of firearms
and ammunitions.
On this score, Trinidad v. People 26 held:
x x x An examination of the ruling in the drugs cases (which
Trinidad offered as evidence and the RTC admitted as part of his
testimony) confirms that the drugs cases and this case are so
interwoven and interdependent of each other since, as mentioned,
the drugs, as well as the subject firearms and ammunition, were
illegally seized in a singular instance, i.e., the buy-bust operation.
Hence, the Court may take judicial notice of the circumstances
attendant to the buy-bust operation as found by the court which
resolved the drugs cases. To recall, in the drugs cases, the finding of
unreasonableness of search and seizure of the drugs was mainly
based on the failure of PO1 Sanoy's testimony to establish the
legitimacy of the buy-bust operation against Trinidad as said
testimony was found to be highly doubtful and incredible. x x x
Applying De Guzman and Trinidad, the prosecution failed to prove
appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for violation of RA 10591. Verily,
an order of acquittal on this score is also in order.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated December
6, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 07949 is REVERSED
and SET ASIDE.
Appellant Salvador Javier y Padua is ACQUITTED in Criminal Case Nos.
21812-2013-C, 21813-2013-C, and 21814-2013-C. The Director of the Bureau
of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is ordered to a) immediately release him 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. Let entry of
final judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENA

Division Clerk of Court

by:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULO

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Deputy Division Clerk of Court

Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia with the concurrence of Associate
Leoncia R. Dimagiba and Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, rollo, pp. 2-23.
2. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
3. Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act.
4. Penned by Presiding Judge Caesar C. Buenagua, CA rollo, pp. 14-31.

5. Id. at 30-31.
6. Rollo , pp. 2-23.
7. Id. at 22.
8. Id. at 31-33.

9. Id. at 36-38.
10. People v. Barte, 806 Phil. 533, 542 (2017).
11. People v. Balibay , 742 Phil. 746, 753 (2014).

12. People v. Dela Torre , G.R. No. 225789, July 29, 2019.

13. Id.
14. Id.

15. People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 239000, November 05, 2018.

16. G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.

17. People v. Manansala , G.R. No. 229509, July 3, 2019.

18. People v. Santos, G.R. No. 236304, November 05, 2018.

19. G.R. No. 218434, July 17, 2019.

20. G.R. No. 229037, July 29, 2019.

21. G.R. No. 218126, July 10, 2019.

22. Id.

23. People v. Villojan, Jr., G.R. No. 239635, July 22, 2019.
24. De Guzman v. People, G.R. No. 240475, July 24, 2019.

25. Id.

26. G.R. No. 239957, February 18, 2019.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com