THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 223682. October 9, 2019.]

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

ADDIN y MADDAN, accused-appellant.

DECISION

HERNANDO, J : p

On appeal is the May 28, 2015 Decision 1 rendered by the Court of

Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. C.R. No. 05729 affirming the June 25, 2012 Decision
2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 103 finding

accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5

(illegal sale), Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Antecedents
Accused-appellant Onni Addin y Maddan (Addin) is appealing his
conviction for the sale of dangerous drugs, arguing that since the chain of
custody has been broken, his conviction should be overturned.
The facts, as alleged by the prosecution, are as follows:
On March 16, 2010, at around 6 o'clock in the evening, a female
confidential informant went to the Special Anti-Illegal Drugs unit at Camp
Karingal, Quezon City with the information that a certain Onni Addin has
been selling illegal drugs at Barangay Culiat. After assessing the information,
a buy-bust operation was planned with PO2 Joel Diomampo (PO2 Diomampo)
designated as poseur-buyer and given a PhP500.00 bill marked with his
initials "JD." PO2 Jorge Santiago (PO2 Santiago) together with other police
officers acted as back-ups.
Before the team was dispatched, SPO1 Jeffrey Flores (SPO1 Flores)
prepared a Pre-Operation Report 3 and sent a Coordination Form 4 to the
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). Afterwards, the team, along
with the informant, proceeded to Barangay Culiat. Upon arrival thereat at
around 8 o'clock in the evening, they parked their car along Mujahedin Street
inside Shalaam Compound. PO2 Diomampo and the informant alighted first
from the vehicle and walked towards the target area while the other
members of the team also walked on foot and discreetly positioned
themselves about 15 to 20 meters away from PO2 Diomampo.
Upon seeing Addin standing in front of a house along Mujahedin Street,
the informant approached the former and introduced him to PO2 Diomampo.
The informant told Addin that PO2 Diomampo wanted to buy shabu . In
response, Addin asked how much shabu PO2 Diomampo will buy, to which
PO2 Diomampo replied PhP500.00 worth. Addin then handed over the shabu
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 after receipt of payment thereof. Thereafter, PO2 Diomampo lighted a
cigarette, which was the pre-arranged signal that the sale was
consummated. Immediately after, the other police operatives rushed to the
target area while Addin tried to escape. He was, however, apprehended by
PO2 Santiago who was coming from the opposite direction.
PO2 Santiago handcuffed Addin and informed him of his offense and his
constitutional rights. He also recovered from Addin the buy-bust money.
Shortly thereafter, the team vacated the area since they were aware that a
number of police officers have already perished in the area due to previous
shoot-outs. PO2 Diomampo held on to the seized sachet of shabu while PO2
Santiago kept the marked money.
The team arrived at the police station at around 10 o'clock in the
evening. PO2 Diomampo then turned over the seized item to the police
investigator, SPO1 Flores, who prepared a Request for Laboratory
Examination 5 to the PNP Crime Laboratory that same night. Likewise, SPO1
Flores prepared a Joint Affidavit of Arrest, 6 an Affidavit of Attestation, 7 and
the Inventory of Property Seized. 8 The latter was witnessed by Addin's
relatives and a member of the media, Vener Santos. Photographs of the
seized item, the marked money, and Addin were also taken.
The forensic chemist in-charge, PSI May Andrea Bonifacio (PSI
Bonifacio), after receipt of the request and the seized sachet, conducted an
examination and found that the specimen tested positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. 9 She then sealed the
specimen in a plastic, marked it with her initials, then turned it over to
Sherlyn Almeda Santos, the evidence custodian, for safekeeping. 10
On April 20, 2010 an Information 11 was filed charging Addin with a
violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the accusatory portion of which
reads:
That on or about the 16th day of March, 2010 , in Quezon City, and
within the jurisdiction of [this] Honorable Court, the above-named
accused did then and there, without being authorized by law, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously SELL AND DELIVER to PO2 Joel
D i o m a m p o ZERO POINT ZERO SIX (0.06) gram of
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly known as 'Shabu,' a
dangerous drug, in violation of the afore-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 12
During his arraignment, Addin entered a plea of "not guilty." 13
In his Counter-Affidavit, 14 Addin denied the allegations against him. He
claimed that he was in front of a sari-sari store to buy some things when
suddenly he saw several men being pursued by police officers in civilian
clothes. Thereafter, the police returned after failing to arrest the man they
were pursuing. To his utter surprise, the police arrested him and showed him
the illegal drugs. Addin denied any involvement in illegal drug activities,
insisting instead that he was engaged in the business of selling vegetables
and of operating a videoke outlet. Lanilyn Jomdani 15 and Rahma Ibrahim 16
corroborated Addin's version in their respective Affidavits dated March 30,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 2010.
Argie Alsree Amahit (Amahit) also testified that Addin was with him at
the sari-sari store and that the police officers arrested the latter when they
were not able to arrest their target. 17 Additionally, he asserted that the
police officers did not say anything while they were arresting Addin. 18
Corroborating Amahit's narrative, Addin denied ever being involved in
illegal drugs. 19 He averred that after he was arrested, he was brought to a
basketball court then made to board a vehicle bound for Camp Karingal and
while thereat, he was made to sit on a chair where nobody was allowed to
approach or talk to him. He was then directly brought to jail. 20 He insisted
that there was no buy-bust operation at the time. 21
On cross-examination, Addin reiterated that the police officers did not
inform him why he was arrested. 22 He admitted that there was an
investigation a day after his detention but the reason for his arrest was not
disclosed to him. 23 He likewise confirmed that his photographs and the
confiscated items were taken during the said investigation. 24
The Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
In a June 25, 2012 Decision, 25 the RTC found Addin guilty as charged.
It noted that the seized dangerous drug was properly handled and stored in
the PNP Crime laboratory. 26 It found the prosecution witnesses credible and
that the police properly informed and coordinated with the PDEA about the
planned buy-bust operation. Relevantly, it noted that although the inventory
of the seized items was not done in the crime scene, the same was
justifiable since the police officers found the area dangerous. The RTC took
judicial notice of the fact that Shalaam Muslim Compound was known to be a
dangerous place for police officers due to prior shoot-out incidents. The trial
court further pointed out that unlike the marking of the seized items, the
inventory need not be performed at the crime scene since no search warrant
was involved. Additionally, it noted that Addin and his relatives and a media
representative were present when the inventory was made. 27 It opined that
the inventory was made in Camp Karingal on the same day the buy bust
took place at around 11:00 PM on March 13, 28 2010 and that Camp Karingal
is near Shalaam Muslim Compound and therefore the rules was followed by
the police in this case. 29
The dispositive portion of the RTC's Decision reads:
ACCORDINGLY, judgment is rendered finding the accused
ONNI ADDIN Y MADDAN, GUILTY as charged for selling a
dangerous drug (methylamphetamine hydrochloride) in violation of
Section 5, RA [No.] 9165 and he is hereby sentenced to suffer LIFE
IMPRISONMENT and ordered to pay a fine of P500,000.00.
The sachet of shabu involved in this case is ordered transmitted
to the PDEA thru DDB for disposal as per RA [No.] 9165.
SO ORDERED. 30

Aggrieved, Addin appealed 31 before the CA and raised the following

issues:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 1) WAS THERE COMPLIANCE WITH THE MANDATORY
PROCEDURES IN DRUG OPERATIONS AND ESSENTIAL
REQUISITES OF CHAIN OF CUSTODY?
2) IS NON-COMPLIANCE THEREWITH A GROUND FOR
ACQUITTAL?
3) ARE THERE CIRCUMSTANCES CONSISTENT WITH
INNOCENCE OF THE ACCUSED?
4) WAS THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED PROVED BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT? 32
The Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The CA, in its assailed May 28, 2015 Decision, 33 affirmed the RTC's
ruling which found Addin guilty of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. 34 It noted
that the disputed issue was not actually the sale and delivery of the illegal
drugs but the purported non-compliance by the arresting officers with
Section 21, Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA
9165, or the chain of custody rule. 35 Contrary to the assertion by the
defense, the appellate court found that the chain of custody was not broken.
36 It emphasized that based on the testimonies, the evidence confiscated
from the accused at the time of the buy-bust operation was the same one
tested, introduced and testified to; hence, the integrity of the evidence was
preserved. 37
Thus, the dispositive portion of the CA's Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated
June 25, 2012 of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch
103, in Criminal Case No. Q-10-164544 convicting accused-appellant
[Addin] for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED. 38

Discontented, Addin then elevated 39 his case before Us raising the

issue of whether or not Addin is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
Accused-appellant Addin avers that the prosecution failed to establish
the identity of the seized item as it was not proven that the marking of the
sachet was done in Addin's presence and the other witnesses required under
the rules. 40 He posits that the saving clause under Section 21 of the IRR of
RA 9165 does not apply since the prosecution did not have justifiable
grounds for non-compliance and the integrity of the seized item could not be
proven based on the chain of custody rule. 41 Apart from this, Addin alleges
that Section 21 of the IRR of RA 9165 should be strictly complied with. 42 He
also contends that the presumption of regularity in the performance of
duties by the police officers should not apply in this case. 43 In view of these,
he asserts that the equipoise rule should be applied. 44
Conversely, the Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG), maintains that the trial court did not err when it convicted Addin
based on the testimonies of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust
operation. Similarly, it argues that the chain of custody and the integrity of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 the seized items were preserved. 45 It explains that "[t]he chain of custody
of the drug seized — from the time it was confiscated, its marking, inventory
and photographing in the presence of appellant and his relatives and before
a member of the media, its turn-over to the investigator, its endorsement to
the forensic chemist for laboratory examination, its receipt by the forensic
chemist, the result of the laboratory examination and the presentation of the
seized drug to the court as evidence — was conclusively established by the
prosecution during the trial of the case." 46
It similarly contends that the fact that the inventory was not made at
the crime scene was not fatal to the prosecution since the police team
immediately conducted the required procedures upon arrival at the police
station. The reason why they did not do so at the crime scene was because
of the danger posed to the police team due to the previous shooting
incidents in the area which led to the deaths of other police officers. 47 It
points out that the defense was not able to prove that the police officers
harbored any ill motive against Addin as to falsely implicate him.
Additionally, it failed to overcome the presumption of regularity with regard
to the police officers' discharge of their duties. 48 Lastly, it asserts that
Addin's defense of denial was not corroborated with sufficient proof and
therefore cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses. 49
The Court's Ruling
There is merit in the appeal.
Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 provides that to successfully prosecute
the offense of sale of illegal drugs, the following elements must be satisfied:
"(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment
therefor." 50 In a buy-bust operation, the receipt by the poseur-buyer of the
dangerous drug and the corresponding receipt by the seller of the marked
money consummate the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. 51 In the instant
case, the elements for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs are present. The
testimonies of the police officers, coupled with the documentary and object
evidence, demonstrated that Addin was caught selling shabu to PO2
Diomampo who acted as the poseur-buyer. Addin's receipt of the marked
PhP500.00 bill consummated the sale of the illegal drug. Hence, based on
the evidence, the sale was consummated and the confiscated item, the
corpus delicti, was presented in court to prove the same. 52
Moreover, this Court finds that Addin failed to show proof that the
police officers who composed the buy-bust team were impelled by ill motives
to implicate Addin or were not properly performing their official duties. Ergo,
on this aspect, the testimonies of the police officers deserve credit. 53
However, We note that the police officers failed to observe the
procedure in relation to the seizure and custody of dangerous drugs or the
chain of custody, which is found in Section 21 (1), Article II of RA 9165, prior
to its amendment by RA 10640, 54 since the transaction in this case
transpired on March 16, 2010, viz.:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 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 persons 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. (Emphasis supplied)
In relation to this, Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules
and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 provides:
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody
and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and
confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the
presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ),
and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies
of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the
physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place
where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or
at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is
practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that
non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as
long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not
render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said
items[.] 55 (Emphasis Ours).
Section 21 of RA 9165, prior to its amendment by RA 10640 on July 15,
2014, mandates that the marking, photographing and inventory of the
seized items be done in the presence of representatives from the media and
the DOJ, and any elected public official. Notably, in this case, the police only
managed to secure the presence and signature of a representative from the
media to serve as additional witness. No explanation was provided why the
presence of a representative from the DOJ and any elected public official
was not secured.
To stress, the prosecution bears the burden to justify the police
officers' non-compliance based on meritorious grounds, provided that the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items have been properly
preserved. Simply put, the chain of custody in handling the seized item
should not have been broken.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 It is important to note that this Court, in the recent case ofPeople v.
Lim, underscored the significance of the presence of the three key
56

witnesses, specifically a representative from the DOJ, the media, and any
elected public official, at the time of the physical inventory and the taking of
photographs of the confiscated items. In case the said representatives are
absent, this Court held that:
[I]t 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 [from] the accused or any person/s acting
for and in his/her behalf; (3) the elected official[s]
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[d] 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. 57
Aside from this, jurisprudence states that there should be evidence to
show that earnest efforts were employed by the prosecution in order to
secure the attendance of the necessary witnesses in accordance with
Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. Thus, the case of Ramos v. People 58 is
instructive:
[I]t is well to note that the absence of these required witnesses does
n o t 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 [No.] 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 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 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.
In view of these, it should be reiterated that "in the event that the
presence of the essential witnesses was not obtained, the prosecution must
establish not only the reasons for their absence, but also the fact that
serious and sincere efforts were exerted in securing their presence. Failure
to disclose the justification for non-compliance with the requirements and the
lack of evidence of serious attempts to secure the presence of the necessary
witnesses result in a substantial gap in the chain of custody of evidence that
shall adversely affect the authenticity of the prohibited substance presented
in court." 59
In the case at bench, the prosecution failed to at least allege and then
prove any specific reason to explain the absence of the representative from
the DOJ and any elected public official present during the taking of inventory
and photographs. There was no attempt at all to justify the absence of these
witnesses, especially given that they had sufficient time to plan the buy-bust
operation even if it was conducted at nighttime. Surely, while planning, they
could have exerted efforts to request for the attendance of the required
witnesses during the inventory. If nobody was available, the police officers
could have adequately explained it on paper or even during the trial of the
case.
Withal, at most, the explanation given by the police officers pertained
only to why they conducted the inventory and took the photographs at the
police station instead of at the place of operation or arrest, and did not touch
on the reason for the absence of the required witnesses. Additionally, the
police officers did not show that they exerted earnest efforts to secure the
presence of the other required representatives.
Indeed, there was no justifiable ground advanced by the prosecution to
excuse the absence of the said representatives. Relevantly, this lapse casts
doubt upon the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item.
Alternatively, this gives rise to the probability that the integrity of the seized
item might have been compromised while under police custody.
Moreover, this Court finds the efforts to coordinate with PDEA lacking,
as the police officers merely faxed the coordination form and supposedly
made a mere phone call. There was no convincing proof to show that PDEA
as an agency confirmed the supposed coordination with the police officers
tasked to conduct the buy-bust operation or that any representative from
PDEA would join the operation.
Finally, it has not escaped Our notice that there was already a mention
in the Affidavit of Arrest that the illegal drug seized from Addin tested
positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride when in fact, the initial and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 confirmatory results have yet to be released. This only shows the haphazard
handling by the police of the seized sachet which further erodes its integrity.
It should be emphasized that proof beyond reasonable doubt 60 is required
to sustain a conviction in criminal cases. In this case, the said quantum of
proof was not sufficiently satisfied, given Our finding that the integrity of the
confiscated item was not preserved. Consequently, this Court is constrained
to reverse the conviction of the appellant based on reasonable doubt.
In conclusion, We find that the prosecution failed to show that the
chain of custody was properly preserved. Therefore, proof beyond
reasonable doubt was likewise not established.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The assailed May 28,
2015 Decision rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. C.R. No. 05729 is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Onni Addin y Maddan is
ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. He is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention,
unless he is confined for any other lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Director General, Bureau of
Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. Furthermore,
the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to report to
this Court the action he has taken within five (5) days from receipt of this
Decision.
SO ORDERED.
Peralta, Leonen and Carandang, * JJ., concur.
Inting, J., is on official leave.

Footnotes

* Per Raffle dated September 11, 2019.

1. Rollo , pp. 2-11; penned by Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon and concurred in
by then Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. (now a member of this Court)
and Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario.

2. Records, pp. 133-136; penned by Judge Jaime N. Salazar, Jr.

3. Id. at 22.
4. Id. at 23; received by a certain IO1 Paglicaoan of the PDEA NOC at around 4:30
o'clock in the afternoon of March 16, 2010.
5. Id. at 15; dated March 16, 2010.
6. Id. at 19-20.
7. Id. at 31; dated March 16, 2010.

8. Id. at 18; dated March 16, 2010.

9. Id. at 16; Chemistry Report No. D-106-10 dated March 17, 2010.
10. CA rollo, pp. 93-96.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 11. Records, pp. 1-3.
12. Id. at 1.
13. Id. at 35, 37.
14. Id. at 8-10.

15. Id. at 11.

16. Id. at 12-13.
17. TSN, April 17, 2012, pp. 10-12.
18. Id. at 28-29.
19. TSN, May 8, 2012, p. 10.

20. Id. at 13-14.

21. Id. at 16.
22. Id. at 21.
23. Id. at 24-25.

24. Id. at 25.

25. Supra note 2.
26. Records, p. 133.
27. Id. at 135.
28. Should be March 16, 2010.

29. Records, p. 136.

30. Id.
31. Id. at 139-141.
32. CA rollo, pp. 44-45.
33. Supra note 1.

34. Rollo , pp. 6-7, 10.

35. Id.
36. Id. at 8-9.
37. Id. at 9.

38. Id. at 10.

39. Id. at 12-13.
40. Id. at 33-35.
41. Id. at 36-38.
42. Id. at 39-40.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 43. Id. at 41-42.
44. Id. at 44-45.
45. CA rollo, pp. 96-101.
46. Id. at 98.
47. Id. at 100-101.

48. Id. at 101.

49. Id.
50. People v. Magalong , G.R. No. 231838, March 4, 2019, citing People v. Sic-Open ,
795 Phil. 859, 869-870 (2016); People v. Eda , 793 Phil. 885, 896 (2016);
People v. Amaro , 786 Phil. 139, 146-147 (2016); People v. Ros, 758 Phil. 142,
159 (2015).
51. People v. Magalong , G.R. No. 231838, March 4, 2019 citing People v. Sic-Open ,
795 Phil. 859, 869-870 (2016); People v. Eda , 793 Phil. 885, 896 (2016);
People v. Amaro , 786 Phil. 139, 146-147 (2016).
52. People v. Magalong , G.R. No. 231838, March 4, 2019 citing People v. Eda , 793
Phil. 885, 896 (2016); People v. Amaro , 786 Phil. 139, 146-147 (2016) and
People v. Ros, 758 Phil. 142, 159 (2015).
53. People v. Uy , 430 Phil. 516-530 (2002), citing People v. Chua Uy, G.R. No.
128046, March 7, 2000.
54. An Act to Further the Anti-Drug Campaign of the Government, Amending for the
Purpose Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, Otherwise Known as the
"Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."

55. People v. Breis , G.R. No. 205823, August 17, 2015.

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

57. Id., citations omitted.

58. G.R. No. 233572, July 30, 2018.

59. People v. Vistro, G.R. No. 225744, March 6, 2019.

60. RULES OF COURT, Rule 133 § 2.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com