l\epublic of tbe ilbilippines

~upreme ~ourt
;Manila

THIRD DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 197925

Plaintiff-Appellee,
Present:

VELASCO, JR., J., Chairperson,

PERALTA,
versus - DEL CASTILLO,*
REYES, and
JARDELEZA, JJ.

Promulgated:
EDWIN DALA WIS y HIDALGO,
Accused-Appellant. ~ 2015
x----------------------------------------------------------~~-~~-x

DECISION

PERALTA, J.:

For this Court's consideration is the Decision 1 dated January 28, 2011
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02438 affirming, with
modification, the Decision2 dated May 23, 2006 of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Branch 84, Batangas City, in Criminal Case No. 13739, finding
appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Article II of Republic
Act (RA) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002.

In an Information filed with the RTC, Branch 84, of Batangas City,

appellant Edwin Dalawis y Hidalgo was charged with Violation of Article II
of RA No. 9165, the accusatory portion of which reads:

Designated Additional Member in lieu of Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr., per Raffle
dated November 4, 2015.
1
Penned by Associate Justice Mario L. Guarifia III, with Associate Justices Apolinario D. Bruselas,
Jr. and Rodil V. Zalameda, concurring; ro!lo, pp. 2-10.

vi
2
Penned by Presiding Judge Paterno V. Tac-an; CA rollo, pp. 8-18.
Decision 2 G.R. No. 197925

That on or about November 1, 2004, at around 5:10 oclock in the

afternoon at Brgy. Sta. Clara, Batangas City, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being
authorized by law, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
sell, dispense, or deliver 0.14 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride
(shabu), a dangerous drug, which is a clear violation of the above-cited
law.

That the accused has been previously convicted by final judgment

under the following, to wit:

Case No. Offense Court Date of Conviction

Viol. of Sec. 8
5061 Art. II, RA 6425 RTC 8 March 3, 1992
Viol. of Sec. 15
10477 Art. II, RA 6425 RTC 8 June 19, 2000

CONTRARY TO LAW.3

Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.

Consequently, trial on the merits ensued.4

The factual antecedents, as narrated by the witnesses of the

prosecution, are as follows:

At around 4 oclock in the afternoon of November 1, 2004, an asset of

PO2 Christian Boy Garcia Aranza arrived at the police station with
information that shabu could be purchased from a certain Edwin Dalawis of
Barangay (Brgy.) Sta. Clara, Batangas City. Acting on said information,
Aranza, together with SPO4 Delfin Alea, PO3 Nestor Dimaano, PO3 Jayn
Gonda, PO2 Villas, PO2 De Chavez and PO2 Lindbergh Yap, formed a team
to conduct a buy-bust operation. Upon the orders of Alea, Aranza marked a
P500 bill with his initials CGA to be used as the marked money for the
operation. They then proceeded to Brgy. Sta. Clara, Batangas City, with
Aranza, Alea, Dimaano, De Chavez, Yap and the asset, aboard a tinted van,
while Villas and Gonda were on motorcycles. Their departure was recorded
in the police blotter.5

At Brgy. Sta. Clara, Aranza frisked the asset to ensure that he did not
have anything illegal in his possession, gave him the marked money, and
told him to walk towards the place where he would meet the appellant, a
Shell Gasoline Station. The policemen followed the asset thereto, and
watched from the opposite portion of the station in the tinted van. Aside
from appellant who was already thereat, they also saw the notorious drug

3
Id. at 8.
4
Rollo, p. 3.
5
CA rollo, p. 9.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 197925

pusher named Robert Lagmay operating under the alias Tagpi coming out
from Villa Anita. Thereafter, at a distance of more or less seven (7) meters,
the policemen saw the asset hand the marked money to appellant who, in
turn, handed a small transparent plastic sachet they suspected to contain
shabu. Their asset, then, signalled to the policemen the consummation of the
transaction by scratching his head. Upon seeing the signal, they immediately
alighted from the van to apprehend the appellant. PO2 Aranza confiscated
the marked money from appellants right hand, while his asset turned over to
him the plastic sachet. At the same time, PO2 De Chavez was also able to
confiscate a sachet filled with what they suspected was shabu from the
notorious drug pusher, Lagmay.6

The policemen then informed appellant and Lagmay of their

constitutional rights and brought them to the barangay hall of Sta. Clara
where their arrest was recorded in the barangay blotter. From there, they
proceeded to the police station where appellant and Lagmay, together with
the marked money and confiscated plastic sachet, were presented to the desk
officer, SPO1 Martin Calingasan. SPO1 Calingasan recorded the buy-bust
operation in the police blotter, prepared the complaint sheet, and turned over
the suspects and seized items to the duty investigator, PO2 Santiago
Matibag, Jr. In the latters presence, PO2 Aranza marked the plastic sachet
with his initials and the date of confiscation, executed his sworn statement,
and signed the arrest report. PO2 Matibag then prepared the request for
laboratory examination of the seized items and brought the same to the
crime laboratory, where PO1 Malaluan, the duty receiving clerk, received
said items and turned them over to Senior Inspector Jupri C. Delantar, who
conducted the laboratory examination. The findings on the seized items
tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as
shabu.7

Against the foregoing charges, appellant testified on his own version

of facts, thus:

In the afternoon of November 1, 2004, appellant stated that he was at

his house in Villa Anita when he heard a commotion nearby. He peeped
through the door and saw that the commotion was coming from outside the
house of Fe Abag. He then approached the persons thereat and uttered the
words putang ina niyo, ano gang gulo yan? All of a sudden, a man turned
his back and poked a gun at him. He panicked and retreated to his house,
realizing that the persons at the commotion were policemen. He was then
called upon by one of them to go out of his house. He went out and
apologized. However, a policeman cursed at him saying, putang ina ka,
gusto mo pa yatang harangin ang paghuli namin dito kay Fe.8

6
Id. at 10.
7
Id. at 14.
8
Id. at 15.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 197925

The policemen then forcibly took appellant into custody, together with
the other arrested persons, one of whom was the notorious drug pusher,
Robert Lagmay, and brought them first, to the barangay hall, and then next,
to the police headquarters. Inside the intelligence section, appellant was
asked if he had any previous involvement in illegal drugs, to which he
replied in the positive.9 Appellant then overheard the conversation of the
police with Lagmay, wherein they said that since Lagmay is the son of Sgt.
Lagmay and the brother of a certain Liklik, they would file a lesser charge so
as to enable him to post bail, while they would instead file the case against
appellant. Thereafter, the policemen brought out two (2) plastic sachets
containing a white substance, which appellant claimed he has never seen
before. They asked appellant and Lagmay to point to the plastic sachet while
they took a photograph thereof. Afterwards, appellant and Lagmay were put
in jail. On cross-examination, appellant admitted that he had been twice
convicted of offenses involving illegal drugs.10

Appellants testimony was corroborated by his neighbors, Julius

Javier and Lorna Catipan, who were watching from inside their respective
houses, particularly as to how appellant was forcibly brought out of his
house by the policemen.11

In its Decision dated May 23, 2006, the trial court gave credence to
the testimonies of the police officers as they were given in a direct and
positive manner, replete with details as to the manner in which the offense
was committed. It took note of the fact that the police were in a clear
position to witness the transaction, being merely seven (7) meters away, and
also found that the custody and chain of delivery up to the Police Crime
Laboratory were duly established. On the contrary, the RTC was not
impressed with appellants defense that he was forcibly abducted from his
residence in view of the fact that the witnesses did not report such a serious
offense to the proper authorities. It, therefore, disposed of the case as
follows:

WHEREFORE, finding the accused GUILTY BEYOND

REASONABLE DOUBT of the offense charged he is hereby sentenced to
suffer life imprisonment to be served by him at the National Penitentiary
Muntinlupa City with recommendation of no parole for habitual
delinquency and to pay a fine of five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00).

The shabu subject matter of this case consisting of one (1) plastic
sachet shall be delivered by Branch Sheriff Rolando D. Quinio to the
PDEA, Quezon City within fifteen (15) days from today.

SO ORDERED.12
9
Id.
10
Id. at 16.
11
Id. at 16-17.
12
Id. at 18.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 197925

Appellant appealed his conviction arguing that: (1) the existence of

the marked money prior to the alleged buy bust was not duly proven in court
as the police officer who recorded the pre-operation events made no mention
of any marking on the buy-bust money; (2) the prosecution failed to prove
the legitimacy of the operation considering the absence of any document that
would prove that there was indeed a report by the confidential informant of
the police officers; (3) the trial court erroneously failed to appreciate his
defense that based on the conversation he heard between the police and
Lagmay, he was merely being set up considering that a certain Fe Abag, who
was originally the target of the arrest, was actually detained for a drug-
related crime and that Lagmay was allowed to post bail; (4) there are
infirmities in the pre and post operation reports; (5) there is no evidence
which shows that the buy-bust operation was exercised in coordination with
the PDEA or the barangay authorities; (6) the police officers failed to
physically inventory the seized items in the presence of the accused; (7)
there was no proper identification of the specimen actually examined; (8) the
chain of custody of the seized items was not established; (9) he could not be
adjudged as a habitual delinquent because he was charged not of any of the
crimes enumerated by law for which one could be considered as such, but of
violation of the drugs law.13

On January 28, 2011, the appellate court sustained the appellants

conviction with a correction as to the trial courts recommendation of no
parole for its finding of habitual delinquency. It found too trivial appellants
imputation as to the failure of the policemen to record in the pre-operation
report the markings on the P500 bill, citing the ruling in People v.
Concepcion, et al.14 that the recording of the buy-bust money in the police
blotter is immaterial to the prosecution of illegal drugs. Neither is it required
that the confidential informant put his tip down in writing. The CA ruled that
what is material in the prosecution of illegal sale of regulated or prohibited
drugs is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with
the presentation in the court of the corpus delicti of the crime.15

Great weight was likewise accorded to the trial courts factual finding
that the testimonies given by the police officers were unequivocal, detailed,
and straightforward, prevailing over appellants mere allegation of frame-up
and forcible abduction. The appellate court cites the oft-repeated rule that
unless there appears on record some fact or circumstance of weight and
influence which the trial court has overlooked, misapprehended, or
misinterpreted, it shall not interfere with the assessment of the credibility of
the witnesses.16 As to the conduct of a buy-bust operation, moreover, People
v. Ahmad17 ruled that police officers are assumed to have the expertise to

13
Id. at 45-52.
14
578 Phil. 957, 975-976 (2008).
15
People v. Mala, 458 Phil. 180, 190 (2003).
16
People v. Julian-Fernandez, 423 Phil. 895, 910 (2001).
17
464 Phil. 848, 868 (2004).
Decision 6 G.R. No. 197925

determine which specific approaches are necessary to enforce their

entrapment operation.

Furthermore, contrary to appellants asseverations, the CA was

content as to how the identity of the seized drugs and the chain of custody of
the same were established. There was direct testimonial evidence of the
identity of the drugs as shown by the markings on its container and of the
fact that the seizing officers turned over the items to the duty investigator
who then delivered them personally to the laboratory. Thus, the appellate
court, citing People v. Naquita,18 ruled that the failure, by itself, of the police
officers to strictly observe all the requirements laid down in the drugs law,
particularly Section 21 of RA No. 9165, will not invalidate the arrest of the
accused and seizure of illegal drugs in the course thereof, for as long as there
is showing that the integrity and evidentiary value of the same has been
preserved.

As to the trial courts finding of the appellants habitual delinquency

which therefore bars him from any future parole, however, the appellate
court found the same to be without any legal basis. This is due to the fact
that the crime for which appellant has prior convictions is not that of serious
or less serious physical injuries, robo, hurto, estafa or falsification as
provided by Article 62 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

Aggrieved, appellant now seeks his acquittal before the Court,

adopting the arguments he invoked in his appellants brief filed before the
appellate court.19

The appeal is unmeritorious.

As previously alleged in his Appellants Brief, appellant calls for his

acquittal, insisting on several irregularities in the buy-bust operation
conducted by the police officers who apprehended him. Particularly,
appellant notes the absence of evidence which shows that the buy-bust
operation was exercised in coordination with the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency (PDEA) or the barangay authorities, and the failure of
the police officers to properly identify and to physically conduct an
inventory of the seized items in his presence, as mandated by Section 21,
Paragraph 1, Article II of RA No. 9165 which provides:

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

18
582 Phil. 422, 441-442 (2008).
19
Rollo, p. 26.
Decision 7 G.R. No. 197925

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[.]

It bears stressing however, that failure to strictly comply with the

foregoing procedure will not render an arrest illegal or the seized items
inadmissible in evidence20 in view of the qualification permitted by Section
21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA No. 9165, to
wit:

(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[.]21

Thus, it has been held that for as long as the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized items are properly preserved pursuant to the chain of
custody rule, non-compliance with Section 21 of RA No. 9165 does not
automatically render illegal the arrest of an accused or inadmissible the
items seized.22 The rule on chain of custody expressly demands the
identification of the persons who handle the confiscated items for the
purpose of duly monitoring the authorized movements of the illegal drugs
and/or drug paraphernalia from the time they are seized from the accused
20
People of the Philippines v. Manuel Flores y Salazar @ Wella, G.R. No. 201365, August 3, 2015,
citing People v. Salvador, G.R. No. 190621, February 10, 2014, 715 SCRA 617, 634.
21
Emphasis supplied.
22
People of the Philippines v. Michael Ros y Ortega, et al., G.R. No. 201146, April 15, 2015, citing
People v. Robelo, G.R. No. 184181, November 26, 2012, 686 SCRA 417, 428; People v. Dela Cruz, 662
Phil. 275, 292 (2011); People v. Amansec, 678 Phil. 831, 856 (2011); People v. Vicente, Jr. 656 Phil. 189,
197 (2011); People v. Desuyo, 639 Phil. 601, 619 (2010); and People v. Mariacos, 635 Phil. 315, 337
(2010).
Decision 8 G.R. No. 197925

until the time they are presented in court. Moreover, as a method of

authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission
of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the
matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include
testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was
picked up to the time it is offered in evidence, in such a way that every
person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was
received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness
possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in
which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would
then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change
in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain
to have possession of the same.23

In the instant case, appellant simply stated that the chain of custody
of the alleged shabu is highly questionable without presenting any evidence
which would substantiate his allegation. Yet, on the contrary, the records of
the case reveal that the police officers were able to maintain the integrity of
the seized plastic sachet and that the links in its chain of custody were
sufficiently established. The police officers, who were merely at a distance
of seven (7) meters away, convincingly testified that they personally saw
their asset hand the marked money to appellant who, in turn, handed the
plastic sachet containing the white crystalline substance. Immediately
thereafter, they alighted from the van and moved towards appellant. PO2
Aranza himself confiscated the marked money from appellants right hand,
who was duly informed of his constitutional rights before he was brought to
the barangay hall, and then to the police station. There, the confiscated
sachet was presented to PO1 Calingasan who recorded the operation in the
police blotter and then turned over the seized item to PO2 Matibag, the duty
investigator. In the latters presence, PO2 Aranza marked the plastic sachet
with his initials. Thereafter, PO2 Matibag brought the same to the crime
laboratory where PO1 Malaluan, the duty receiving clerk, received said
items and turned them over to Senior Inspector Jupri C. Dilantar, who
conducted the laboratory examination. Based on said examination, Senior
Inspector Dilantar found that the plastic sachet seized from appellant
contains methamphetamine hydrochloride, which finding he reduced into
writing in Chemistry Report No. BD-143-04. Thus, contrary to appellants
bare allegation, there is no showing that the integrity and evidentiary value
of the seized item had been compromised in any way.

Apart from the foregoing allegations, appellant proceeded to impute

additional lapses in the buy-bust operation. According to him, the existence
of the marked money prior to the alleged buy bust was not duly proven in
court as the police officer who recorded the pre-operation events made no

23
People v. Flores, supra note 20, citing Valencia v. People, G.R. No. 198804, January 22, 2014,
714 SCRA 492, 504
Decision 9 G.R. No. 197925

mention of any marking on the buy-bust money. Moreover, appellant asserts

that the prosecution failed to prove the legitimacy of the operation
considering the absence of any document that would prove that there was
indeed a report by the confidential informant of the police officers. Yet,
nowhere in his appellants brief did he provide any basis, jurisprudential or
otherwise, to support his conclusions that these alleged lapses are fatal to his
prosecution. In fact, as aptly ruled by the CA, the recording of marked
money used in a buy-bust operation is not one of the elements for the
prosecution of sale of illegal drugs. Neither is it required that the
confidential informant put his tip down in writing. For as long as the sale of
the prohibited drug is adequately proven, the recording or non-recording
thereof in an official record will not necessarily lead to an acquittal.24

It must be emphasized, at this point, that for a successful prosecution

of offenses involving the illegal sale of dangerous or prohibited drugs under
Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, all of 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 payment
therefor. Succinctly stated, the delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer
and the receipt of the marked money by the seller successfully consummate
the buy-bust transaction. What is material, therefore, is the proof that the
transaction or sale transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of the
corpus delicti, as evidence.25

In the instant case, the Court finds that the foregoing requisites were
sufficiently met. As aptly found by the courts below, evidence for the
prosecution adequately established beyond reasonable doubt the identity of
the seller and buyer as well as the exchange of the plastic sachet of shabu
and the marked money. There was direct proof that the sale of shabu
actually transpired, the chain of custody having been duly preserved,
establishing the corpus delicti in court. This Court, therefore, finds no
compelling reason to diverge from the trial courts findings, especially since
such were affirmed by the appellate court.

It is a well-entrenched rule that the 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
modification or reversal of the outcome of the case.26 Since prosecutions
involving illegal drugs largely depend on the credibility of the police officers
who conducted the buy-bust operation, reliance may be made on the findings
of fact of the trial court, which is in a better position to decide the question,
24
People v. Concepcion, et al., supra note 14, at 976, citing People v. Suson, 527 Phil. 281, 296
(2006).
25
People of the Philippines v. Eric Rosauro y Bongcawil, G.R. No. 209588, February 18, 2015,
citing People v. Torres, G.R. No. 191730, June 5, 2013, 697 SCRA 452, 462-463.
26
Sy v. People, 671 Phil. 164, 180 (2011), citing People v. Dilao, 555 Phil. 394, 407 (2007).
Decision 10 G.R. No. 197925

having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and
manner of testifying during the trial.27 Thus, in view of the clear and
straightforward evidence of the prosecution vis--vis appellants
unsubstantiated defenses, this Court shall accord a high degree of respect to
the factual findings of the courts below.

As to the trial courts finding of habitual delinquency, the Court is in

agreement with appellant, the CA, as well as the prosecution that the trial
court erred in withholding the benefit of parole from appellant on the ground
of habitual delinquency in spite of the express mandate of Article 62 of the
RPC, viz.:

Art. 62. Effect of the attendance of mitigating or aggravating

circumstances and of habitual delinquency. Mitigating or aggravating
circumstances and habitual delinquency shall be taken into account for the
purpose of diminishing or increasing the penalty in conformity with the
following rules:

xxxx

5. Habitual delinquency shall have the following effects:

(a) Upon a third conviction the culprit shall be sentenced to the

penalty provided by law for the last crime of which he be found guilty and
to the additional penalty of prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods;

(b) Upon a fourth conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the

penalty provided for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the
additional penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods;
and

(c) Upon a fifth or additional conviction, the culprit shall be

sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime of which he be found
guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor in its maximum
period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period.

Notwithstanding the provisions of this article, the total of the two

penalties to be imposed upon the offender, in conformity herewith, shall in
no case exceed 30 years.

For the purpose of this article, a person shall be deemed to be

habitual delinquent, is within a period of ten years from the date of
his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious
physical injuries, robo, hurto, estafa or falsification, he is found guilty
of any of said crimes a third time or oftener.28

27
People v. Loks, G.R. No. 203433, November 27, 2013, 711 SCRA 187, 194, citing People v.
Naelga, 615 Phil. 539, 554 (2009).
28
Emphasis supplied.
Decision 11 G.R. No. 197925

It is clear, therefore, that habitual delinquency is considered only with

respect to the crimes specified in the aforequoted Article. In the instant case,
appellant was charged with violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law, the same
crime adjudged in his two (2) prior convictions, and not of crimes of serious
or less serious physical injuries, robo, hurto, estafa or falsification, as
required by the RPC. Hence, the law on habitual delinquency is simply
inapplicable to appellant. 29

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED.

The Decision dated January 28, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
CR-HC No. 02438 is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

~
WE CONCUR:

PRESBITERC)IJ. VELASCO, JR.

Assofiate Justice

~~;
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice Associate Justice

Associate Justice

29
Villa v. Court Appeals, 377 Phil. 830, 837 (1999), citing People v. Moran, et al., 59 Phil. 406
(1934).

~,,
t

Decision 12 G.R. No. 197925

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.

PRESBITt!:E J. VELASCO, JR.

Ass ciate Justice
Chairpe son, Third Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the

Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Chief Justice

CLSRJl,lED TRUE COPY

t':i,~~~t!~:~~:
Third Division
DEC 2 8 2015