SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 175940. February 6, 2008.]

[Formerly G.R. Nos. 155361-62]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , appellee, vs . ANSON ONG a.k.a.

ALLAN CO , appellant.

DECISION

TINGA , J : p

In dubio pro reo. 1

Subject of this automatic review is the Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals dated 7
August 2006 which a rmed the Judgment 3 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City,
Branch 110, convicting appellant Anson Ong alias Allan Co of illegal sale and
possession of shabu.
Two separate Informations were led before the trial court. In Criminal Case No.
97-0017, appellant was accused of illegal sale of shabu, thus:
That on or about the 21st day of [April] 1997, in Pasay City, Metro Manila,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another
without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
sell and deliver 989.05 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), a
regulated drug.

Contrary to law. 4

In Criminal Case No. 97-0018, appellant was charged with illegal possession of
shabu allegedly committed as follows:
That on or about the 21st day of April 1997, Pasay City, Metro Manila,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, Anson Ong alias "Allan Co ," did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control 988.85 grams of
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), a regulated drug without the
corresponding license.
Contrary to law. 5

Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges. A joint trial of
the two cases ensued.
The operative facts are narrated by prosecution witnesses who comprised
members of the buy-bust team. Sometime in April 1997, Col. Zoila Lachica (Lachica)
was tipped off by a female walk-in informant that a group, led by a Chinese national,
was engaged in drug tra cking in Pasay City. Upon veri cation of said information, a
meeting took place between Lachica and the informant where the latter was able to
arrange a drug deal with appellant in the vicinity of Heritage Hotel. 6 Lachica then
instructed Investigator Oscar Coballes (Coballes) to prepare the boodle money
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 consisting of four P500.00 bills and ve P100.00 bills placed on top of nine (9) bundles
of paper cut to the size of the peso bills. These bills were then submitted to the PNP
Crime Laboratory for ultraviolet powder dusting. 7 Before lunchtime on 21 April 1997,
Lachica organized a team and planned the conduct of a buy-bust operation. The twelve-
man team was composed of Lachica, Coballes, Police Supt. Edgar Danao (Danao),
P/Inspector Rolando Montes (Montes), PO3 Manuelito Lagradilla (Lagradilla), SPO2
Wilfredo Saballa (Saballa), SPO3 Pardo, SPO2 Pedro Tan, the con dential informant,
and other civilian agents. Danao acted as the team leader with Montes assisting him.
Saballa was designated as the poseur-buyer and the other members of the team were
tasked to secure the area. 8 DcaECT

After lunch, the group proceeded to the parking lot of San Juan de Dios Hospital
onboard four (4) vehicles, including a motorcycle driven by Lagradilla. At about 3:00
p.m., they reached the parking lot where Danao conducted the nal brie ng and then
deployed his men strategically between the premises of Heritage Hotel and
Copacabana Hotel. 9 At 4:00 pm, Saballa and the informant went to Heritage Hotel
while the other team members strategically posted themselves within the hotel
premises. 1 0
Fifteen minutes later, Saballa and the informant left Heritage Hotel and
proceeded to the adjacent Copacabana Hotel where he waited at the main entrance of
the lobby. Suddenly, a black Honda Civic car with Plate No. ULN 766 arrived and parked
along the driveway near the front entrance. 1 1 The informant approached the car while
Saballa was left behind holding the black bag containing the boodle money. 1 2 Upon
signal by the informant, Saballa came up to the right front door. Saballa showed the
contents of the bag to the driver of the car, who was later identi ed as appellant. He
then handed the bag to him. 1 3 Instantaneously, a man approached the car, took the
boodle money from appellant and ran away. 1 4 Coballes ran towards the driver's side
and poked his gun at appellant. Appellant tried moving the car but Coballes stood in
front and blocked it. Appellant was then ordered to open the door. Coballes saw a red
bag containing white crystalline substance inside the car and took it into custody. 1 5
Meanwhile, Lagradilla chased the man who took the boodle money around the parking
area of Copacabana Hotel. 1 6 While on the run, Lagradilla saw the man throw the money
inside a passing white Toyota car driven by a certain Chito Cua (Cua). Instead of
pursuing the man, Lagradilla blocked the white Toyota car and arrested Cua. 1 7
Appellant presented an entirely different account of the incident on 21 April
1997. Appellant, who apparently does not know English and Tagalog was assisted by
an interpreter, narrated that he is a resident of Chuan Chow, People's Republic of China.
Upon the suggestion of Lau Chan, appellant decided to go to the Philippines to start a
clothing business. In the morning of 21 April 1997, appellant told Lau Chan that he
wanted to go to Baclaran. Lau Chan, who himself was planning to go to the casino at
Heritage Hotel, asked appellant to meet up with him. Appellant tried calling Lau Chan on
this cellphone but the latter was not answering. This prompted appellant to go to
Heritage Hotel to look for Lau Chan. At around 4:00 p.m., appellant was walking along
Epifanio Delos Santos Avenue towards the direction of the Light Rail Transit when he
noticed a commotion in front of the hotel and saw some men carrying guns. Fearing for
his safety, appellant decided to walk faster but someone stopped him and poked a gun
at him. He was made to board a white car in which he met Cua for the rst time. They
were then brought to Camp Crame for questioning. It was Cua who translated the
questions propounded by the police o cers to appellant. He was informed by Cua that
he was arrested for failure to show any document regarding his stay in the country.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 During arraignment however, he learned that he was being charged of possession and
sale of shabu.
Finding the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses credible as against the
bare and self-serving assertions of appellant, the trial court rendered a decision nding
appellant guilty as charged. The dispositive portion of the 11 February 2002 Decision
reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court nds the herein accused
ONG POK PIW a.k.a. ANSON ONG a.k.a. ALLAN CO, GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of two (2) offenses for Violations of Section 15 and 16, Article III of
Republic Act [No.] 6425, as amended in relation to Section 20 and 21 of Article IV
of said law and hereby imposes on him the penalty of two (2) RECLUSION
PERPETUAS in these cases and a fine in the total amount of P200,000.00 in these
cases without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. SDaHEc

The Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or "shabu" in Criminal Case No. 97-

0017 for Violation of Section 15 of Republic Act [No.] 6425, as amended,
weighing 989.05 grams and the Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or "shabu" in
Criminal Case No. 97-0018 weighing 988.85 grams are hereby declared
con scated in favor of the government. The PNP Crime Laboratory at Camp
Crame, Quezon City or its duly authorized representative which has custody and
possession of said regulated drugs are hereby directed to immediately cause the
delivery and transportation thereof to the Dangerous Drugs Board for proper
disposition in accordance with law. The Chief of said o ce is further directed to
inform this Court within 20 days from receipt hereof of the action taken thereon.

The period during which the herein accused was under detention during the
pendency of these cases shall be credited to him in full provided he agreed to
abide by strictly with the rules and regulations of the City Jail.

SO ORDERED. 1 8

An appeal was directed to this Court. However, in a Resolution 1 9 dated 20

February 2006, the case was transferred to the Court of Appeals in light of our
pronouncement in People v. Mateo. 2 0
On 7 August 2006, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed decision a rming
with modification the trial court's ruling, to wit:
WHEREFORE , premises considered, the judgment rendered by the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 110, Pasay City, in Criminal Case Nos. 97-0017 and
97-0018 is hereby AFFIRMED with modi cation . As modi ed, the ne is
increased to Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) for each offense or a
total of ONE MILLION PESOS (P1,000,000.00).

SO ORDERED . 2 1

In nding appellant guilty, the appellate court strongly relied on the testimonies
of the police o cers and dismissed the imputed inconsistencies in their statements as
being minor.
At the core of this appeal is the issue of whether the prosecution was able to
prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of appellant.
Appellant primarily questions the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. He
claims that their testimonies were tainted with inconsistencies which even the trial
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 court had noted in its decision. Appellant relies on said observation to support his
acquittal based on reasonable doubt. He asserts that his conviction must rest on the
strength of the prosecution's own evidence and not on the weakness of the evidence
for the defense.
The O ce of the Solicitor General (OSG), in its Brief, 2 2 insists that all the
elements of sale and illegal possession of shabu were duly established by the
prosecution. It avers that appellant was caught in agrante delicto selling shabu to the
poseur-buyer in a legitimate buy-bust operation. 2 3 Moreover, when the poseur-buyer
and Coballes opened the door of appellant's car, they saw a red bag on the oor
containing white crystalline substances which were later tested and found positive for
the presence of shabu. 2 4 The OSG contends that the opinion of the trial court with
respect to the actuations of the prosecution witnesses on the stand did not affect its
judgment of conviction because the trial court lent full faith and credence to the
collective testimonies of the police o cers who are presumed to have performed their
duties in accordance with law. 2 5 DHESca

For the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs to prosper, the following elements
must be proved: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is
material is the proof that the transaction actually took place, coupled with the
presentation before the court of the corpus delicti. 2 6
The prosecution seeks to establish the presence of these elements through the
testimonies of the police o cers involved in the buy-bust operation. The innocence or
culpability of appellant thus hinges on the issue of credibility. It is an oft-repeated rule
that findings of facts of the trial court, as affirmed by the appellate court, are conclusive
on this Court, absent any evidence that both courts ignored, misconstrued, or
misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances of substance which, if considered,
would warrant a modi cation or reversal of the outcome of the case. 2 7 This case falls
under the exception.
In determining the credibility of prosecution witnesses regarding the conduct of
buy-bust operation, the "objective test," as laid down in People v. Doria , 2 8 is utilized. It
has been held that it is the duty of the prosecution to present a complete picture
detailing the buy-bust operation — from the initial contact between the poseur-buyer
and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the consideration,
until the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal subject of sale. The
manner by which the initial contact was made, the offer to purchase the drug, the
payment of the buy-bust money, and the delivery of the illegal drug must be the subject
of strict scrutiny by courts to ensure that law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully
induced to commit an offense. 2 9
In People v. Ong 3 0 and Cabugao v. People 3 1 where the "objective test" was also
applied, chasmic de ciencies that similarly marked the prosecution evidence led to the
absolution of the accused. In Ong , also involving Chinese nationals as accused, the
prosecution evidence on the buy-bust operation was outrageously complete as the
con dential informant who had sole knowledge of how the alleged illegal sale of shabu
was initiated and how it was carried out was not presented as a witness. 3 2 In Cabugao,
the prosecution witnesses could not agree on the reason that prompted them to
conduct the buy-bust operation. While the rst witness testi ed that the tip came from
their informants, the second witness maintained that no informer was involved in the
operation. 3 3
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 In the case at bar, the evidence for the prosecution failed to prove all the material
details of the buy-bust operation. The details of the meeting with the informant, the
alleged source of the information on the sale of illegal drugs, appear hazy. Lachica
declared that he met the informant for the rst time a week before the buy-bust
operation:
Q Do you recall Mr. Witness when that walk-in informant visited your office?

A I cannot recall the exact date but as far as I can remember she visited
before the operation was conducted.
FISCAL

And you are referring to the operation on April 21, 1997?

A Yes, sir. DIcTEC

COURT
How many days prior to the date of operation did that alleged walk-in
informant go to your office?
A I cannot remember the exact date but I think more or less one week before.
More or less 1 week. 3 4

But Coballes testi ed that the informant reports to their o ce every now and then,
thus:
COURT
A moment counsel, this informant, was he an employee of your o ce or
an informant working for your office?
WITNESS

A He is an informant working from our office.

COURT
When you say informant working in your o ce, is he receiving salary from
your o ce as a regular employee or he reports or he goes to your o ce
every now and then?

A He reports in our office every now and then. 3 5

Coballes related that the informant was present during the brie ng held before lunch on
21 April 1997:
Q Now when Col. Lachica called you, aside from you and some members of
your office, are there any other persons present?
A Yes sir, our informant.

Q Now how do you know that this person is an informant?

A He was introduced to us by our chief, Col. Lachic[a], sir. 3 6

while Lagradilla denied seeing the informant at the meeting:

COURT
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 In that briefing, was there a mention of an informant or an asset?

WITNESS
A Col. Lachica mentioned of a certain asset.
COURT

Was that asset present during the briefing at the headquarters?

A Asset was not present[,] sir. 3 7

Despite being the designated poseur-buyer, Saballa testi ed that he had no

knowledge of how much shabu he was going to buy.
Q How much shabu are you going to purchase? AEIHCS

A One (1) kilo, Your Honor.

Q How much is one kilo worth?

A I am not aware of the price, Your Honor.

Q How much is one kilo worth?
A I do not know the price they have agreed, Your Honor.
Q You are supposed to be the poseur buyer and you do not know how much
shabu you are going to buy?
A I do not know, Your Honor. 3 8

The actual exchange of the bags containing shabu and the boodle money was
not clearly established. The presentation of shabubefore the Court could have shed
light on the identity of the object of the sale. Unfortunately, the presentation of the
shabu purportedly con scated from appellant was dispensed with at the instance of
the defense counsel. 3 9
Coballes testi ed that he saw Saballa hand the boodle money to appellant in
exchange for a wrapped object presumed to be shabu. 4 0 On the contrary, the
ultraviolet dusting of the boodle money was conducted but appellant was found
negative for fluorescent powder. 4 1
As between the prosecution witnesses' account that it was appellant to whom
the boodle money was passed and who was driving the black Honda Civic car during
the alleged buy-bust operation and appellant's denial that he owned and drove said car,
we are inclined to believe appellant. The prosecution failed to present the purported
driver's license con scated from appellant. In fact, they reasoned that it was missing.
4 2 On the other hand, the defense presented a certi cation from the Land
Transportation O ce (LTO) and the Philippine Motor Association stating that
appellant's name does not exist in the LTO's le of licensed drivers and has not been
issued a Philippine International Driving Permit 4 3 by the Automobile Association of the
Philippines.
Further rendering the prosecution's version dubious is the escape of another
alleged cohort of appellant. Lagradilla, who was speci cally tasked to block or run after
any escaping suspect, failed in this regard. During the alleged buy-bust operation, he
was positioned in such a manner that a rewall was blocking his vantage point. 4 4
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Instead of using his motorcycle, he chased the suspect on foot. 4 5 Moreover, it is quite
di cult to imagine how one suspect can easily escape notwithstanding the presence
of at least twelve (12) police operatives in the vicinity.
The witnesses' hesitation in answering questions on the stand, as aptly observed
by the trial court, 4 6 only compounded their lack of credibility.
Lachica, who was the Chief of the Criminal Investigation Division of the NCR-
CIDG, cannot seem to recall the vital parts of the buy-bust operation such as the
composition of the buy-bust team, the strategic location of the team members, the
presence of the name of the other accused, Cua, 4 7 and how much of the boodle money
was recovered. 4 8
Moreover, he denied any participation in the conduct of the buy-bust operation:
Q You said you supervised the planning of this operation. Did you not say
that?
A No Your Honor[,] what I said is that I gave instruction to Col. Danao and we
planned out the operation and our procedure, the [over-all] team leader will
be the one to provide or make some arrangement[s] pertaining to the police
operation. 4 9aDcEIH

However, Coballes insisted that Lachica was present all throughout the operation, thus:
ATTY. ZULUETA
And so, in your testimony February 13, 2000[,] you narrated to the Court
that Col. Lachica led this operation?
A Yes, sir.
Q He was with you on the parking lot to brief you on your operation?
A Yes.

Q And he was with you all throughout the operation?

A He was at the Heritage Hotel. Yes.
Q Mr. Witness[,] you as police officer[,] do you know the penalty for perjury?
A I know that perjury is punishable but I don't know the penalty.
Q Did you know that Col. Lachica appeared before this Court and testi ed in
this Hon. Court on July 29, 1999 and he testi ed that he did not conduct
the actual operation but it was Col. Danao?
A He was with us and Col. Danao at the Heritage Hotel at the time.
Q Will you still maintain that, who is lying now, Col. Lachica or you?
A Col. Lachica and the rest stayed at the Heritage Hotel considering that the
buy-bust operation was at the Heritage Hotel.
Q And yet, Col. Lachica said that as lone Chief of the Criminal Investigation
Division he only gave instruction to Col. Danao. The question is[:] do you
still maintain despite that [sic] testimony that Col. Lachica was present
during the operation?

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 A I do. 5 0

Lachica denied having heard of the name of appellant until he was arrested:
Q Will you tell the Court[,] do you know a certain Anson Ong alias Allan Co?
A During April?
Q Before April?
A No, I don't remember that I encountered a name Anson Ong but after the
operation conducted by Edgar Danao[,] I read the name of Anson Ong as
the arrested person. 5 1

On the other hand, Montes alleged that the name of appellant was mentioned during the
briefing held in the office:
FISCAL VIBANDOR cAECST

Q Mr. Witness, on April 21, 1997, you said that you will conduct a buy-bust
operation against whom?
WITNESS
A Against Anson Ong.

FISCAL VIBANDOR
Q Now, when for the rst time did you come to know that you are going to
conduct [buy-bust] operation against Anson Ong?

A During our briefing at the office.

xxx xxx xxx
Q And who were present during that briefing?
A All of us except for Lagradilla because he was sent out to get his motor
bike, it was only Col. Danao, myself, Coballes, Saballa, Tan and [a] civilian
asset. 5 2

According to Coballes, he was instructed by Lachica to prepare the boodle

money to be submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory for powder dusting:
Q You want to impress us Mr. Witness, that a week or before the day that you
rst met the informant you were instructed by Colonel Lachica to prepare
buy-bust money?

WITNESS
A Yes, sir. 5 3

Lachica's million-peso estimate of the drug deal is certainly higher than the
P250,000.00 amount stated by Coballes. Ironically, Lachica cannot recall the exact
amount or denomination of the boodle money he himself had provided for the
operation:
Q According to you[,] there will be a drug deal. Do you know how much shabu
is involved in this drug deal as arranged by your lady informant?

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 A I cannot recall the exact amount or quantity but the deal is more than one
million. . . . 5 4
Q Who provided the buy bust money for this buy-bust operation?
A I was the one who provided the buy-bust money, the boodle money.
FISCAL

How much money did you provide?

A I cannot remember the exact amount because the money used in that
operation is boodle money.

Q And to whom did you give this money that will be used in this [buy-bust]
operation? CaTcSA

A I think Agent Coballes.

Q Do you recall in what denomination were these [buy-bust] money given?
A I cannot remember. 5 5

While the presentation of the boodle money, as a general rule, is not

indispensable in the prosecution of a drug case, the material inconsistencies in the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the non-presentation of the buy-bust
money raise reasonable doubts on the occurrence of a buy-bust operation. 5 6 It is
indeed suspicious that vital pieces of evidence, such as the boodle money and the
driver's license were lost while in the custody of Coballes who unfortunately passed
away during trial. Certainly, the failure to present vital pieces of these evidence cast
doubt on the veracity of the buy-bust operation.
Another ba ing point is the dismissal of the criminal case against Cua, the
alleged accomplice of appellant. The prosecution witnesses testi ed that the boodle
money was found in his possession. This fact was con rmed by the presence of
fluorescent powder on Cua's hands.
The Constitution mandates that an accused shall be presumed innocent until the
contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt. While appellant's defense engenders
suspicion that he probably perpetrated the crime charged, it is not su cient for a
conviction that the evidence establish a strong suspicion or probability of guilt. It is the
burden of the prosecution to overcome the presumption of innocence by presenting
the quantum of evidence required.
In the case at bar, the basis of acquittal is reasonable doubt, the evidence for the
prosecution not being su cient to sustain and prove the guilt of appellant with moral
certainty. By reasonable doubt is not meant that which of possibility may arise but it is
that doubt engendered by an investigation of the whole proof and an inability, after such
an investigation, to let the mind rest easy upon the certainty of guilt. An acquittal based
on reasonable doubt will prosper even though the appellants' innocence may be
doubted, for a criminal conviction rests on the strength of the evidence of the
prosecution and not on the weakness of the evidence of the defense. 5 7 Su ce it to
say, a slightest doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused. 5 8
With the failure of the prosecution to present a complete picture of the buy-bust
operation, as highlighted by the disharmony and incoherence in the testimonies of its
witnesses, acquittal becomes ineluctable.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02256
is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Anson Ong a.k.a. "Allan Co" is ACQUITTED of the crime
charged against him on the ground of reasonable doubt. His immediate release from
prison is ordered unless he is being held for some other valid or lawful cause.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ORDERED to implement this Decision
forthwith and to INFORM this Court, within ve (5) days from receipt hereof, of the date
appellant was actually released from confinement. Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
Quisumbing, Carpio, Carpio-Morales and Velasco, Jr., JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1. This Latin legal maxim literally means "when in doubt, for the accused." The earliest
historical root of this rule is from the Roman Emperor Trajan (AD 98-117) when he gave
the legal advice that "it is better not to punish the act of a culprit than to sentence an
innocent."
2. Rollo, pp. 3-24; penned by Associate Justice Normandie Pizarro and concurred in by
Associate Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Aurora Santiago-Lagman.
3. CA rollo, pp. 32-43; penned by Judge Porfirio G. Macaraeg.

4. Id. at 13.
5. Id. at 15.
6. TSN, 29 July 1999, pp. 4-9.
7. TSN, 3 March 1998, p. 13.
8. Id. at 16-17.
9. Id. at 17-20. cCTIaS

10. Id. at 21-22.

11. TSN, 26 November 1999, p. 44.
12. TSN, 3 March 1998, p. 30-34.

13. TSN, 17 October 2000, pp. 44-47.

14. TSN, 3 March 1998, pp. 36-37.
15. Id. at 41-43.
16. Id. at 40.
17. TSN, 26 November 1999, p. 54.

18. CA rollo, pp. 42-43.

19. Rollo, p. 2.
20. G.R. Nos. 147678-87, 7 July 2004, 433 SCRA 640.
21. Rollo, p. 23.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 22. CA rollo, pp. 108-128.
23. Id. at 118.
24. Id. at 120.
25. Id. at 123.
26. People v. Quiaoit, G.R. No. 175222, 27 July 2007; People v. Cabugatan, G.R. No.
172019, 12 February 2007, 515 SCRA 537, 547; People v. Del Mundo, G.R. No. 169141, 6
December 2006, 510 SCRA 554, 562.
27. People v. Dilao, G.R. No. 170359, 27 July 2007.
28. 361 Phil. 595 (1999).

29. Cabugao v. People, G.R. No. 158033, 30 July 2004, 435 SCRA 624; People v. Ong, G.R.
No. 137348, 21 June 2004, 432 SCRA 471, 485; People v. de Guzman, G.R. No. 151205, 9
June 2004, 431 SCRA 516, 523; People v. Padasin, 445 Phil. 448, 456 (2003).
30. G.R. No. 137348, 21 June 2004, 432 SCRA 471.
31. G.R. No. 158033, 30 July 2004, 435 SCRA 624.

32. Supra note 30.

33. Supra note 31 at 634.
34. TSN, 29 July 1999, pp. 4-5.
35. TSN, 14 December 1998, p. 19.

36. TSN, 3 March 1998, p. 9.

37. TSN, 26 November 1999, pp. 12-13.

38. TSN, 17 October 2000, p. 18.

39. TSN, 3 March 1998, p. 34.

40. Id.
41. TSN, 22 August 2000, p. 7.
42. TSN, 12 February 1999, p. 3.

43. Records, pp. 299-300.

44. TSN, 26 November 1999, p. 48.

45. Id. at 51. cCEAHT

46. TSN, 29 July 1999, p. 8; 26 November 1999, p. 19.

47. TSN, 29 July 1999, p. 18.

48. Id. at 30.

49. Id.
50. TSN, 25 April 2000, p. 12.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 51. TSN, 29 July 1999, p. 4.

52. TSN, 15 February 2000, pp. 7-8.

53. TSN, 3 March 1998, pp. 12-13.

54. TSN, 29 July 1999, p. 8.

55. Id. at 14.

56. People v. Balag-Ey, G.R. No. 141532, 14 April 2004, 427 SCRA 384, 406.
57. People v. Pabiona, G.R. No. 145803, 30 June 2004, 433 SCRA 301, 323, citing People v.
Morada, 307 SCRA 362, 380 (1999), People v. Cañete, G.R. No. 128321, 11 March 2004,
425 SCRA 353, and People v. Leaño, 366 SCRA 774, 792 (2001).
58. People v. Milan, 370 Phil. 493, 506 (1999).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com