CEHTIFIEl> TlUJE COP\'

~~
:nov.~
\

~epublic of tbe ltbilipptnes w11.F

$)upreme <!Court Divis' 11 Ckrk ofCnnrl

;ffffi.anila
JUL 2 6 2018

THIRD DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 219582

Plaintiff-Appellee,
Present:

VELASCO, JR., J., Chairperson,

BERSAMIN,
- versus - LEONEN,*
MARTIRES, and
GESMUNDO, JJ

BENITO PALARAS YLAPU-OS, Promulgated:

Accused-Appellant.
July U, 2018

x--------------------------~~ ~~ - - - - - - - - - - - :x

DECISION

MARTIRES, J.:

On automatic appeal is the 29 January 2015 Decision 1 of the Court of

Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 01758, which affirmed the
14 November 2013 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 69,
Silay City, in Criminal Case Nos. 8561-69 and 8562-69. The RTC found
accused-appellant Benito Palaras y Lapu-os (accused-appellant) guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the charges against him, and sentenced him with
life imprisonment and a fine of PS00,000.00 for violating Section 5, Article
3
II of Republic Act No. 9165 (R. A. No. 9165) fa!{

On Official Leave.
Rollo, pp. 4-19.
CA rollo, pp. 52-65.
Otherwise known as An Act Instituting the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, Repealing
Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended, Providing
Fu11her Funds Therefor, and for Other Purposes.
Decision 2 G.R. No. 2-19582

THE FACTS

Two Informations filed on 13 March 2012 charged accused-appellant

with violation of Sections 5 and 11, respectively, of Article II of R.A. No.
9165, viz:

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 8561-69

That on February 22, 2012 in Silay City, Negros Occidental,

Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously sell one sachet of shabu marked as "BITl ", a prohibited
drug, to an asset of the Silay City PNP posing as a poseur buyer in
exchange for two One hundred peso bills with serial numbers
SQ914777 & ZE353426 and one fifty peso bill with serial number
SBOl 9053, all marked with an underline at the last digit of each serial
number.

4
CONTRARY TO LAW.

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 8562-69.

That on Frbruary 22, 2012 in Si lay City, Negros Occidental.

Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have in his possession and control four sachets of shabu
marked as Bit2, Bit3, Bit4, & Bit5, a prohibited drug, without any
license or permit to possess the same.

CONTRARY TO LA W. 5

Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty. The two

cases were jointly tried.

Version of the Prosecution

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) summarized the

prosecution's case as follows:

The Intelligence Section of the Philippine National Police of Silay

City (PNP-Silay City) received reports that a certain Benito Palaras y
Lapu-os a.k.a. "Bitoy," a resident of Sitio Matagoy, Barangay Rizal, Silay
City, was actively engaged in selling shabu in the said area together with his ~

Records (Criminal Case No. 8561-69), p. I.

Records (Criminal Case No. 8562-69), p. 1
Decision 3 G.R. No. 219582

brother, Joemarie Palaras, who had been previously arrested for a similar
offense.

Pursuant to the said reports, P/Supt. Rosauro B. Francisco, Jr., the

Chief of Police of PNP-Silay City, ordered surveillance, monitoring, and
casing operation on accused-appellant. A test-buy operation was then
undertaken with the use of a confidential asset, who acted as the poseur-
buyer. A sachet of shabu was purchased by the poseur-buyer from accused-
appellant for the sum of Two Hundred Fifty Pesos (P250.00). The item
purchased from the accused-appellant in said test-buy was brought to the
PNP Crime Laboratory of the Negros Occidental Provincial Police Office
(NOPPO) on 14 December 201 l. The contents of the said plastic sachet was
"positive" for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug,
as shown in Chemistry Repmi No. D-241-2011.

A buy-bust operation was thus set on 22 February 2012, to be

conducted by the same police unit on accused-appellant Palaras. Two (2)
Pl 00-peso bills and a 1!50-peso bill were marked by underlining the last
digit of the serial numbers on each of them. The same were subscribed to
before Prosecutor Ma. Lisa Lorraine H. Atotubo as the money to be used in
said buy-bust operation. This was entered in the blotter of the PNP-Silay
City as Entry No. 024885.

The planned buy-bust operation was coordinated with the Philippine

Drug Enforcement 'Agency (PDEA), Regional Office 6. A pre-operation
report and coordination form were likewise issued. Details of the operation
were planned at a short briefing in the office of the Intelligence Section of
the PNP-Silay City. The members of the buy-bust operation team were P02
Reynaldo Bemil, Jr. (P02 Berni!), P02 Ian Libo-on (P02 Libo-on), and a
number of civilian agents of the police unit, with P02 Bemil as the lead
police officer.

The marked bills were given by P02 Bernil to the confidential asset,
who was to act as the poseur-buyer. The poseur-buyer proceeded to Burgos
Street, Barangay Rizal, Silay City, ahead of the other members of the buy-
bust team, to meet accused-appellant. The poseur-buyer was instructed to
immediately call P02 Berni! the moment he saw accused-appellant at the
said place. Shortly after the poseur-buyer made the call that he had already
seen accused-appellant in the area, the other members of the buy-bust team
proceeded there. They positioned themselves a few meters away from where
the poseur-buyer was, such that their presence would not be noticed by

M
accused-appellant but sufficient for them to clearly see him and the poseur-
buyer.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 219582

The poseur-buyer approached a person seated in a tricycle parked on

the street. Since the former was a previous customer of accused-appellant,
Palaras did not become suspicious. The poseur-buyer took out from this
pocket the marked bills and handed them to accused-appellant, who readily
received the bills and placed them in his pocket. Accused-appellant,
thereafter, took something from his pocket and gave it to the poseur-buyer.
As they parted ways, the poseur-buyer gave the pre-arranged signal that the
sale had already been consummated by placing his right hand on top of his
head. The other members of the buy-bust team, specifically P02 Berni!,
SPOl Rayjay Rebadomia (SPOJ Rebadomia), and P02 Libo-on, hurriedly
proceeded towards acc1ised-appellant who, upon noticing the approaching
police officers, attempted to escape but was promptly apprehended.

P02 Bemil searched the body of accused-appellant and recovered

from the left pocket of his pants the marked bills, as well as four (4) small
heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline
substances. P02 Berni! handed these transparent plastic sachets to P02
Libo-on who marked them as "BIT2 " "BIT3 " "BIT4" and "BITS "
' ' ' ' '
respectively.

On the other hand, the poseur-buyer handed to P02 Berni! a small

heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing a crystalline substance
which the former received from accused-appellant. P02 Berni], in tum,
handed it to P02 Libo-on which the latter marked as "BITl ," the buy-bust
item.

Accused-appellant and the items recovered from him were then

brought to the police station of the PNP-Silay City. An inventory was made
of the seized items from accused-appellant which he signed. The said
inventory was witnessed by, among others: Councilor Ireneo Celis, media
representative Ed Gumban, Kagawad Noel Lacson, and DOJ representative
Danilo Tumlos.

Thereafter, the marked plastic sachets were brought to the PNP Crime
Laboratory NOPPO at Bacolod City, for laboratory examination.

Chemistry Report No. D-049-2012 6 was issued by Police Inspector

Hernand Gutierrez Donado, a forensic chemist, showed that "BITl" had a
net weight of 0.2 gram, and "BIT2," "BIT3," "BIT4," and "BITS" had a net
weight of 0.()] gram each, with an aggregate weight of 0.06 gram. Said for

Records, p. 111; Exhibits" I" to "I-3.··

Decision 5 G.R. No. 219582

report found that all the aforementioned specimen tested "positive" for
methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug. 7

Version of tire Defense

Accused-appellant testified that on 22 February 2012, at around

4:00 P.M., he was inside a private tricycle at Kahilwayan, Brgy. 2, Silay
City. While he was conversing with his friends, two armed men in civilian
clothes approached him, aimed a gun at him, and handcuffed him. He
resisted and asked them why he was being arrested as he had done nothing
wrong. No answer was given and he was forcibly held in front of the jeep.
To his surprise, one of the police officers inserted his hand on accused-
appellant's pocket and eventually made a search. Accused-appellant resisted
the body search as his pockets had holes in them; however, the police
authorities persisted.

Accused-appellant further testified that during the search, a Tanduay

Rum bottle cap dropped to the ground, but he had no idea where it came
from. Subsequently, he was made to board a green multicab and taken to the
police station. At the station, he saw a small transparent plastic sachet on the
table and was astounded when police authorities told him that the transparent
sachet was found inside the bottle cap, evidence that he was in possession of
an illegal drug. He further testified that a photographer arrived and took the
P250.00 from his pocket and placed it on the table. Photographs were taken
and accused-appellant was forced to sign the certificate of inventory being
informed by the authorities that another case would be filed against him if he
refused to sign the document.

Jenny Casiano, accused-appellant's niece, claimed that on

22 February 2012, a neighbor called her while she was at home watching
TV. She ran outside and there she saw her uncle, accused-appellant, being
held forcefully by the police officers. Accused-appellant asked for her help.
Jenny narrated that she was dragged by the police officers away from her
uncle.

Jenny also claimed that while her uncle was being handcuffed, a bottle
cap was inse11ed by P02 Bemil into her uncle's pocket. She observed that
the bottle cap contained a small transparent sachet which fell to the floor and
which P02 Bemil picked up. After the body search, the crowd applauded as
the seized items were seen to have been purposely placed in accused-
appellant's pocket. Jenny did not go with her uncle when the latter wasfo!

CA rollo, pp. 138-140.

Decision 6 G.R. No. 219582

brought to the police station, but she immediately reported the incident to
her father. 8

The RTC Ruling

The RTC convicted accused-appellant for violation of Section 5 and

Section 11, Article II, of R.A. No. 9165.

The dispositive portion reads:

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED:

In Criminal Case No. 8561-69, this Court finds accused, BENITO

PALARAS y [LAPU-OS], a.k.a. "BITOY," GUILTY of "Violation of Section
5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165" (The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act of 2002), as his guilt had been proven by the prosecution beyond
reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, this Court sentences accused, BENITO PALARAS y

[LAPU-OS], a.k.a. "BITOY," to suffer the penalty of Life Imprisonment, the
same to be served by him at the National Penitentiar"y, Muntinlupa City, Rizal.

Accused, Benito Palaras y [Lapu-os], a.k.a. "Bitoy" is, further, ordered

to pay a fine of P500,000.00.

In Criminal Case No. 8562-69, this Court finds accused, BENITO

PALARAS y [LAPU-OS], a.k.a. "BITOY," guilty of "Violation of Section 11,
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act of 2002), as the Prosecution had proven his guilt for said crime beyond any
reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, and in application of the pertinent provisions of the

Indeterminate Sentence Law, this Court sentences accused, BENITO
PALARAS y [LAPU-OS], a.k.a. "BITOY," to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment for a period of from TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (I) DAY
as Minimum, to SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS and FOUR (4) Months as
maximum, the same to be served by him at the National Penitentiary,
Muntinlupa City, Rizal.

Accused named is, further, ordered to pay a fine of P400,000.00.

In the service of the sentences imposed by this Court on accused,

Benito Palaras y [Lapu-os], a.lea. "Bitoy," his period of detention pending trial
of this case shall be credited in his favor.

Accused, Bentito Palaras y [Lapu-os] a.k.a. "Bitoy" is, in the meantime,

remanded to the custody of the Jail Warden of the Bureau of Jail Management
and Penology (BJMP), Silay City, Negros Occidental, pending his transfer t o ! ' /

Id. at 104-105.
Decision 7 G.R. No. 219582

the National Bilibid Prisons, where he shall serve the sentence imposed on him
by the Court.

The one (1) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing

white crystalline substances in it of methamphetamine hydrochloride
("Shabu ") subject of the buy-bust operation on the accused and the four (4)
small heat-sealed plastic sachets, likewise, containing methamphetamine
hydrochloride ("Shabu ") on them, with a total weight of 0.6 grams, are ordered
remitted to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), Negros
Occidental Police Office, Camp Alfredo Montelibano, Bacolod City, for proper
disposition.

NO COSTS.

SO ORDERED. 9

In rendering its judgment of conviction, the RTC ruled that the sale
and possession by accused-appellant of the drug were sufficiently
established by the prosecution, and the identity and integrity of the drug
seized were duly preserved.

Aggrieved, accused-petitioner elevated an appeal to the CA.

The CA Ruling

The CA denied the appeal and affirmed the decision of the R TC, viz:

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the appeal is

DENIED. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 69, Silay City
dated November 14, 2013 in Criminal Cases Nos. 8561-69 and 8562-69 is
hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED. 10

Hence, the present appeal.

ISSUE

WHETHER OR NOT THE CA AND THE RTC ERRED IN FINDING

THAT THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE PROSECUTION

jJ4{
WARRANTED ACCUSED-APPELLANT'S CONVICTION FOR THE
CRIMES CHARGED.

9
Id. at 63-64.
10
Id. at 165.
Decision 8 G.R. No. 219582

Accused-appellant contends that the CA erred in affirming his

conviction because the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drug were
not sufficiently established considering that: ( 1) the arresting officers were at
least 10 meters away from the location of accused-appellant and the poseur-
buyer had an obstructed view of the transaction; (2) the poseur-buyer, who
had personal knowledge of the transaction, was not presented to testify on
the details of the sale; and (3) there were gaps in the chain of custody
because while it was established that the seized drugs were in P02 Berni l's
custody en route to the police station, no details were provided as to the
handling of the items.

THE COURT'S RULING

The Court finds the present appeal meritorious.

As a "trap for the unwary criminal," a buy-bust operation is generally

considered a valid means of arresting those who commit violations under
R.A. No. 9165, where the idea to commit the crime originates from the
offender without inducement or prodding from anybody. 11 It finds its basis
in the validity of an in flagrante delicto arrest, when a suspect has just
committed, or is in the act of committing, or is attempting to commit an
offense. 12

However, proof of the transaction constituting the crime must be

credibly and completely established in order to secure a conviction because
in every criminal prosecution, the State bears the burden of proving the
crime beyond reasonable doubt. 13

An accused may only be convicted of illegal sale of dangerous drugs

under Section 5, Article II ofR.A. No. 9165 ifthe prosecution is able to prove
the following elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object
of the sale and its consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the
payment therefor. 14 It is important that the sale transaction is properly
established and that the object of the transaction, the seized drugs, be
presented in court and identified as the same items seized from the accused. 15

P02 Bemil's testimony shows that the members of the buy-bust team
apprehended accused-appellant based on the pre-arranged signal from the
poseur-buyer that the transaction with accused-appellant had been fir
11
People v. Bartolome, 703 Phil. l 48, l 6 l (2013 ).
12
People v. Andaya, 745 Phil. 237, 246 (2014).
u Id. at 247.
14
People v. Ismael, G.R. No. 208093, 20 February 2017.
15 ld.
Decision 9 G.R. No. 219582

consummated. However, the prosecution did not present the poseur-buyer

during the trial to describe the said transaction. The records also show that it
was P02 Bernil who was tasked to monitor the movements of accused-
appellant and the poseur-buyer and was positioned the closest to the subject
transaction, but he was located ten (10) meters away from the transaction, viz:

(to SPO l Rebadomia)

Q. What happened there?

A. Our poseur-buyer went ahead of us and it was P02 Bernil who
will monitor the actions of our poseur-buyer while I and P02
Libo-on will wait for the signal of P02 Bernil.

Q. How far were you from the subject person?

A. I was about 20 meters from the subject person because I was

waiting [sic] the signal of P02 Bemil. 16 (emphasis and
underscoring supplied)

xx xx

(to P02 Bemil)

Q. Were you able to have a meeting?

A. Yes. After a short briefing at the Intelligence Section Office. I was
the one who briefed our poseur-buyer and I also briefed him with
respect to our pre-arranged signal to indicate that the exchange of
the marked money and illegal drug is being consummated.

Q. What is your signal, the pre-arranged signal?

A. After the exchange, he will put his right hand over his head. 17

xx xx

(to P02 Berni!)

Q. And what happened when you reached the place?

A. When we were already at the place wherein Mr. Benito Palaras
was seen sitting inside the tricycle, our poseur-buyer made
ready to transact business. I gave the signal to proceed. Our
poseur-buyer went to the subject person to start to transact
business.

Q. How far were you from them?

A. More or less, ten meters away.

Q. While they were transacting business, what did you see?

A. When our poseur-buyer approached Benito Palaras, I saw our
poseur-buyer took out the money from his pocket and gave it to
Mr. Benito Palaras, and as his regular customer their transaction
_ _ _ _ _ _p_r_o_c_e_ed_e_d_a_ft_er the exchange of marked money. After the receiptlf

16
TSN, 27 September 2012, p. 12.
17
TSN, 13 September 2012, pp. 19-20.
 Decision 10 G.R. No. 219582

of the suspected one sachet of shabu, he placed his hand over his
head and we proceeded to arrest the subject person.

Q. You said you saw your poseur-buyer and the accused transacting
with each other. Were you in front of them?
A. No. I was near the Pugzone Store, and he could not see us.

Q. But you were able to see them?

A. Yes, the place where Mr. Benito Palaras was is very visible from
where I was. I was in the fruit store at Burgos St.

Q. Was there a store there?

A. There were several eateries in the left side.

Q. But was he outside the store?

A. Yes, sitting inside a tricycle. 18 (emphases and underscoring
supplied)

While it is true that the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer is fatal

19
only if there is no other eyewitness to the illicit transaction, P02 Bernil and
the other members of the buy-bust team cannot be considered as eyewitnesses
to the illegal sale of drugs because their distance raises doubt that they could
confirm whether what transpired was actually a sale, considering the legal
characterizations 20 of the act constituting the crime.

In People v. Amin, 21 this Court did not deem as eyewitness account the
testimony of the prosecution witnesses who were ten ( 10) meters away from
the transaction. Similarly, in People v. Guzon, 22 a police officer who admitted
that he was seven (7) to eight (8) meters away from the actual transaction was
not considered an eyewitness to the crime.

Notably, also, P02 Bernil testified that accused-appellant was inside a

tricycle when the transaction took place and it was not established that he was
still able to clearly see the acts of both the poseur-buyer and accused-appellant
despite the latter's position and the cover afforded by the tricycle.~

18
Id. at 20-21.
19
People v. Berdadero, 636 Phil. 199, 213 (2010).
20
Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 punishes "any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell,
trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any
dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity
involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions." Under the law, selling was any act "of
giving away any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical whether for money
or any other consideration;" while delivering was any act "of knowingly passing a dangerous drug to
another, personally or otherwise, and by any means, with or without consideration."
21
G.R. No. 215942, 18 January 2017, 814 SCRA 639.
2~
719 Phil. 441 (2013).
 Decision 11 G.R. No. 219582

It can also be gleaned from the foregoing testimonies that the members
of the buy-bust team primarily relied on the pre-arranged signal in order to
effect the arrest.

In People v. Andaya, 23 the Court ruled that "the reliance on the

supposed signal to establish the consummation of the transaction between the
poseur-buyer and Andaya was unwarranted because the unmitigatedly hearsay
character of the signal rendered it entirely bereft of trustworthiness. The
arresting members of the buy-bust team interpreted the signal from the
anonymous poseur-buyer as sign of the consummation of the transaction. Their
interpretation, being necessarily subjective without the testimony of the
poseur-buyer, unfairly threatened the liberty of Andaya." 24

Consequently, the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer in this case is

fatal to the prosecution's case. Without an eyewitness account to the illegal
sale, the evidence of the prosecution does not satisfy the quantum of proof
necessary for accused-appellant's conviction.

Since the poseur-buyer was not presented to testify on the details of the
subject transaction, the act of accused-appellant as witnessed by the members
of the buy-bust team cannot, therefore, be limited to illegal sale of drugs. It was
capable of multiple explanations. It is a well-established rule that "if the
inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more interpretations,
one of which being consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other
or others consistent with his guilt, then the evidence in view of the
constitutional presumption of innocence has not fulfilled the test of moral
certainty and is thus insufficient to support a conviction. " 25

On accused-appellant's conviction for illegal possession of shabu, this

Court is also constrained to reverse the same.

A conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs requires the

prosecution to establish the following: ( 1) that the accused was in possession
of dangerous drugs; (2) that such possession was not authorized by law; and
(3) that the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession
of dangerous drugs. 26

The seizure of the items marked as "BIT2" "BIT3 " "BIT4" and
' ' '
"BITS" was made after a warrantless search on accused-appellant incidental
to his arrest based on the buy-bust operation. However, as discussed earlier,
since the sale transaction was not sufficiently established and no crime for th~

23
Supra note 12.
24
Id. at 249.
25
Franco v. People, 780 Phil. 36, 50 (2016).
26
People v. Ismael, supra note 14.
 Decision 12 G.R. No. 219582

sale of illegal drugs could be attributed to accused-appellant, then there could

have been no basis for the warrantless search. Any item it yielded could not,
therefore, be used as evidence against the accused-appellant. 27

More importantly, accused-appellant's possession of the drugs was

premised on his sale thereof. There is no showing that the prosecution
independently established illegal possession through testimony or other
evidence, aside from merely linking it to the illegal sale. Since the sale was
not duly proven, then it cannot be said that the third element of the crime -
that accused-·appellant freely and consciously possessed the drug - was
sufficiently established. Thus, proof beyond reasonable doubt of accused-
appellant' s possession of illegal drugs is wanting.

It is also worth noting that the buy-bust team had conducted a

surveillance and monitoring operation on accused-appellant prior to the buy-
bust operation, and that a test-buy operation was in fact made months before
the actual buy-bust operation, where a laboratory examination on the bought
item yielded positive for shabu. There was thus enough time and reason for
the team to secure a search warrant on accused-appellant, and it is curious
why they did not.

In view of the foregoing, it is no longer necessary to discuss other

issues raised by both parties.

WHEREFORE, the Comi REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the Comi

of Appeals Decision, dated 29 January 2015, in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 01758,
affirming the 14 November 2013 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 69, Silay City, in Criminal Case Nos. 8561-69 and 8562-69, and
ACQUITS accused-appellant BENITO PALARAS y LAPU-OS of the
crimes charged in Criminal Case Nos. 8561-69 and 8562-69 on the ground of
reasonable doubt. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is hereby
ORDERED to immediately release accused-appellant BENITO PALARAS
y LAPU-OS from custody unless he is being detained for some other lawful
cause.

SO ORDERED.

27
In Veridiano v. l'eople, G.R. No. 200370, 7 June 2017, this Court reiterated that "a search incidental to
a lawful arrest requires that there must first be a lawful arrest before a search is made. Otherwise
stated, a lawfu I arrest must precede the search; 'the process cannot be reversed."'
Dt:cision 13 G.R. No. 219582

WE CONCUR:

ociate Justice
Chairperson

(On Official Leave)

MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN
Associate Justice

G.- GESMUNDO

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been _r,tached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the ol3Plion of the
Court's Division.

PRESBITE~J. VELASCO, JR.

Ass ciate Justice
Chairpe son, Third Di vision
Decision 14 G.R. No. 219582

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.

Senior Associate Justice

(Per Section 12, R.A. No. 296,
The Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended)

Ci:ln fHLV TiU .t. ( 4 ~,·".

Di' i~i(~
\\iLHl.l)th(i ,-fl
~:fel·I:.
<. ·· '" :·
Third l>i ·. ·.,

JUL 2 6 2018