REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUPREME COURT
Baguio City

SECOND DIVISION

NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution
dated 27 April 2022 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 249185 (People of the Philippines v. Salahudin Pindaton y

Paniambaan@ "Odin," a.k.a. Salahoden P. Pendatun). - This is an appeal
from the May 23, 2018 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) affirming the
May 18, 2017 Judgment2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch
20. The RTC found accused-appellant Salahudin Pindaton y Paniambaan @
"Odin," a.lea. Salahoden P. Pendatun (accused-appellant) guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA)
9165 3 or the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."

The Factual Antecedents

An Information4 dated November 11, 2015 was filed against accused-

appellant that reads:

That on or about October 1, 2015, in the city of Manila, Philippines, the

said accused, not being authorized by law to sell, trade, deliver or give away to
another any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
knowingly sell or offer for sale for Php 500.00 to SPO I JOHN SIMON B.
BALTAZAR, a poseur buyer, one (1) hea[t]-sealed transparent plastic sachet
containing white crystalline substance weighing THREE POINT FO UR
HUNDRED THREE (3.403) grams marked -as "SPP" contaimng
Methainphetamine hydrochloride known as SHABU, which is a dangerous drug.

1
Rollo, pp. 108-1 2 1. Penned by Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios and concurred in by Associate Justices
Japar B. Dimaampao and Jhosep Y. Lopez (now Members of this Court).
2
Records, pp. 13 1-139. Penned by Presiding Judge Marivic Balisi-Umali.
3
Entitled "AN Acr INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS A CT OF 2002, RE PEALING
REPUBLIC AC"r No. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS A CT OF I 972, As AMENDED,
PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, A ND FOR OTHER PURPOSES." Approved: June 7, 2002.
4
Records, pp. 1-2.

(158)URES(a) - more -
Resolution 2 G.R. No. 249185

Contrary to law. 5

Version of the Prosecution

The prosecution alleges that on October 1, 2015, the Manila Police District
-District Anti-Illegal Drugs (MPD-DAID), received a report from an informant
regarding the drug-peddling activities of accused-appellant. Pursuant to this
report, the MPD-DAID chief ordered the conduct of a buy-bust operation,
headed by Senior Police Officer (SPO) I John Simon Baltazar (SPOI Baltazar),
as the poseur-buyer. 6

On the same date, the buy-bust team and the informant arrived at the target
area in front of SM Carriedo at Palanca Street, Quiapo, Manila, at around 2:00
p.m. After a while, SPO I Baltazar and the informant were approached by
accused-appellant who, upon being introduced to SPO 1 Baltazar, uttered:
"kukuha ka ba? Maganda ang tamuk (shabu) namin. "(will you buy? Our shabu
is good).7 Agreeing to the offer, SPOl Baltazar handed accused-appellant
marked bills consisting of five pieces of Pl 00.00-bills as payment. After
receiving the money, accused-appellant discreetly gave SPO I Baltazar a clear
plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance suspected to be shabu.
Afterwards, SPO 1 Baltazar signaled to his companions the consummation of
the sale, and immediately arrested accused-appellant. SPOI Baltazar introduced
himself as a police officer, and informed accused-appellant of his Miranda
rights. Since some pedicab drivers and the relatives of the accused-appellant
tried to rescue him, the police officers decided to proceed to their office for the
marking and inventory of the seized items there. 8

At their office, SPOl Baltazar marked the clear plastic sachet with "SPP,"
the initials of the accused-appellant, inventoried, and took photographs of the
seized items in the presence of accused-appellant, and one Robert Amoroso, a
member of the Manila Police District Press Club. Thereafter, the items were
turned-over to Police Officer (PO) 2 Eduardo Dolleton (PO2 Dolleton), the case
investigator, who prepared the Booking Sheet, Arrest Report, and the Request
for Forensic Examination. Afterwards, PO2 Dolleton transferred the items to
Police Chief Inspector Elisa Reyes Arturo (PCI Arturo), the Forensic Chemical
Officer, for testing. The white crystalline substance seized from the accused-
appellant yielded a positive result for the presence of methamphetamine
hydrochloride, also known as shabu.9

On the other hand, accused-appellant denied the charges against him, and
alleged that he was framed. He claimed that it was impossible for him to be at

5
Id. at I.
6
Rollo, pp. 4-5.
7
Id. at 5.
8
Id. at 5-6.
9
Id. at 6.

(158)URES(a) - more -
/1/r
Resolution 3 G.R. No. 249185

the area where the buy-bust occurred on October 1, 2015 because he was already
detained at the MPD-DAID office the day before. He asserted that on September
30, 2015, while walking along Palanca Street, he was apprehended by several
police officers and brought to the MPD-DAID office for questioning. The
accused-appellant claimed that he was threatened and mauled, and was forced
to admit that he was a drug pusher. He further alleged that he was later informed
by his sister that some police officers were extorting money from her in
exchange for his liberty. In addition, the accused-appellant presented the
testimonies of several persons who claimed that he was a person of good moral
character.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

In its Judgment 10 dated May 18, 2017, the RTC found accused-appellant
guilty as charged. The dispositive portion of the trial court's Judgment reads:

PREMISES CONSIDERED, his guilt having been established and proved

beyond reasonable doubt for Violation of Section 5, R.A. 9165, accused
SALAHUDIN PINDA TON y PANIAMBAAN @ ODIN a.k.a.
SALAHODEN P. PEND ATON is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life
imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00

The 3.403 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride subject of the instant

case is ordered confiscated in favor of the government.

so ORDERED. 11
In convicting accused-appellant, the RTC held that aside from his denial,
accused-appellant failed to present sufficient evidence to support the same.
While he presented witnesses who vouched for his good character, the RTC
stated that "there are however, times when good and upright man go astray." 12

More importantly, the RTC found that the prosecution was able to establish
all the elements of the crime charged. This, coupled with accused-appellant's
failure to "come up with strong and convincing evidence to overcome the
presumption that the law enforcement officer acted in the regular performance
of their official duties," undoubtedly warrants a conviction. 13

Aggrieved, accused-appellant elevated the case to the CA by filing a Notice

of Appeal 14 dated May 25, 2017.

10
Records, pp. 13 1- 139.
11
Id. at 139.
12
Id at 137.
D Id. at 137-139.
14
Id.at 143- 144.

(158)URES(a) - more -
Resolution 4 G.R. No. 249 185

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

In its May 23 , 2018 Decision, 15 the CA denied the accused-appellant' s

appeal and affirmed the RTC Judgment.

In ruling so, the CA held that SPOl Baltazar' s testimony as to the conduct
of the buy-bust operation, which led to the arrest of the accused-appellant, was
credible and "materially supported by real and documentary evidence." 16 The
CA likewise found the integrity of the seized items to have been sufficiently
preserved. 17

Thefallo of the CA Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error, the Judgment dated 18 May

2017 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Manila is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED. 18

Undeterred, accused-appellant elevated the case to this Court by filing a

Notice of Appeal 19 dated June 11, 2018.

Issue

The sole issue to be resolved is whether accused-appellant is guilty beyond

reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165.

In his Brief,20 accused-appellant principally contends that the police

officers' narration of buy-bust is unbelievable, considering the "grossly
inadequate price" 21 at which the subject shabu was allegedly sold for to SPOl
Baltazar. Further, the accused-appellant faults the arresting officers for failing
to sufficiently comply with the chain of custody rule, as required by Section 21 ,
Article II ofRA 9165. Lastly, the accused-appellant maintains the credibility of
his denial and alibi, alleging that he was a victim of "hulidap." 22

Our Ruling

The appeal is meritorious.

IS CA rollo, pp. l 08-1 2 1.

16
Id. at 115.
17
Id. at 11 3-1 20.
18
Id. at 120.
19
Id. at 126- 127.
20
Rollo, pp. 34-60.
21
Id at 43.
22
ld. at 57.

(158)URES(a) - more -
Resolution 5 G.R. No. 249 185

In People v. Buniag,23 the Court laid down the elements required for a
successful prosecution of a drugs case:

[l]t is important for the Comito point out that for a successful prosecution of the
offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under RA 9165, x x x the following
elements must be proven: (1) the transaction or sale took place; (2) the corpus
delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) the buyer and the
seller were identified.

In cases involving dangerous drugs, the confiscated drug constitutes the

very corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a
judgment of conviction xx x. 24

The Court holds that the prosecution failed to establish the first element.
There is reasonable doubt as to whether the alleged buy-bust operation was
actually conducted, and whether it was conducted properly. Moreover, there is
a serious doubt as to the integrity of the seized dangerous drugs, assuming there
was any drug actually seized from accused-appellant.

In its attempt to establish the first element, i.e., that the transaction or sale
took place, the prosecution solely relied on the testimony of the alleged poseur-
buyer - SPOl Baltazar. However, a careful review of his testimony will reveal
many inconsistencies on crucial points which cast serious distrust as to the
truthfulness of the same.

First, and as claimed by accused-appellant, there is a lingering question as

to the price the shabu was sold for. SPOl Baltazar testified as follows:

SACP AGUILA: And after you responded SIGE SUSUBUKAN KO YANG

DALA MO, what happened next?
WITNESS: He demanded for the payment, sir.

SACP AGUILA: What price did he ask for?

WITNESS: PhpS00.00, sir.

SACP AGUILA: Now, of your own personal knowledge Mr. Witness since
you are member of DAID for almost two years what is
now the street value of tamuk or bato or shabu?
WITNESS: For now parang PhpS,000.00 per gram, sir.

SACP AGUILA: Now, in 2015 what was the street value?

WITNESS: Mas mura po noon, sir.

SACP AGUILA: How much?

WITNESS: Php4,000.00, sir.

23
G.R. No. 2 1766 1, June 26, 20 19.
24 Id.

(158)URES(a) - more -
Resolution 6 G.R. No. 249185

SACP AGUILA: And how much gram or grams were you going to buy
from this alias Odin?
WITNESS: I'm just buying for the amount of PhpS00.00, sir. 25
(Emphasis supplied).

Clear from the foregoing testimony of SPO 1 Baltazar are two things: one,
that at the time of the arrest, he knew the street price of shabu to be
approximately P4,000.00 per gram; and two, that he was buying only P500.00
worth of s habu. Yet, despite these facts, SPO 1 Baltazar claims that he was able
to recover a total of3.403 grams of white crystalline substance, later on verified
to be shabu, from accused-appellant. On this point, We quote with approval the
argument of accused-appellant:

If the price of one (1) gram of shabu is wo1ih about Four Thousand Pesos
(Php4,000.00) at the time the accused-appellant was arrested, three point four
zero three (3.403) grams of shabu, the amount of illegal drugs allegedly sold by
the accused-appellant was worth about Thirteen Thousand Six Hundred and
Twelve Pesos (Php13,612.00). Meanwhile, the amount of money allegedly given
by SPO 1 Baltazar was merely Five Hundred Pesos (PhpS00.00).

This unexplained huge and unexplained gap between the value of the illegal
drugs allegedly sold by the accused-appellant and the consideration therefore that
SPO 1 Baltazar gave casts doubt as to whether an actual buy-bust operation
occurred. This detail uncontroverted by the plaintiff-appellee, sticks out like a
sore thumb, exposing the alleged buy-bust operation as a sham. 26

While this itself is not an element of the crime charged, it goes into the
plausibility of whether the sale or transaction actually happened - the element
of the crime - in view of the same being contrary to normal human experience.
Interestingly, this peculiar circumstance was never addressed by the
prosecution. As mentioned, this engenders disbelief as to the presence of the
first element; i.e., that an actual buy-bust took place. In fact, even assuming that
a buy-bust indeed took place, there is, at the very least, reasonable doubt as to
the true amount of illegal substance recovered from accused-appellant, for it is
highly unbelievable for shabu to be sold at such a low price. In any case, the
integrity of the seized items is tainted.

Second, there are unaddressed inconsistencies in the testimonies and

exhibits of the prosecution. For one, SPOl Baltazar was unsure as to which
pocket the accused-appellant drew the alleged shabu recovered. He testified as
follows:

SACP AGUILA: So, after you gave the PhpS00.00 what happened next?
WITNESS: After I gave five (5) Phpl00.00 bills to alias Odin he put
it inside his right front pocket, sir.

25
TSN, November 14, 20 16, pp. 12-1 3.
26
Rollo, p. 44.

(158)URES(a) - more -
Resolution 7 G.R. No. 249 185

SACP AGUILA: Then, what happened next?

WITNESS: Then he drew from his right pocket the heat sealed
transparent plastic sachet and discreetly handed over to
me, sir.

SACP AGUILA: Why did you say discreetly, Mr. Witness?

WITNESS: Hindi nya po kasi lantad na ibinigay, sir.

SACP AGUILA: Please demonstrate before this Court how did alias Odin
handing (sic} over to you the specimen discreetly which
you testified earlier.
WITNESS: He drew it from his left front pocket, sir. 27 (Emphasis
supplied).

Again, while in itself not an element, the foregoing goes into the credibility
of SPOl Baltazar's testimony on the alleged buy-bust.

In addition, there appears to be a conflict between the Joint Affidavit of

Complaint and Apprehension, 28 wherein one of the signatories is SPOI
Baltazar, and the document marked as Exhibit "K." 29 In the Joint Affidavit of
Complaint and Apprehension, it is stated that the accused-appellant was
wearing long pants, thus:

That, during the course of apprehension I, SPO I Baltazar, directed the

above named suspect to empty the contents of his pocket and thereon recovered
coming out from his right front pocket long pants were five (5) pcs. Php I 00.00
bills utilized as the marked buy-bust money. 30 (Emphasis supplied)

On the other hand, Exhibit "K," which contains a photograph appearing to

have been taken during the marking of the seized items at the MPD-DAID
office, shows accused-appellant wearing shmis, and not long pants. In the
ordinary course of things, inaccuracies as to this seemingly inconsequential
detail rarely happen, considering that police officers apprehending a drug
suspect would typically be focused on the trousers the suspect is wearing where
the contraband is normally kept. Thus, what appears to be a trivial matter at
first, gains importance when there is an unexplained conflict, such as in this
case. Further, while these inconsistencies may easily be addressed by simply
presenting another witness from the buy-bust team, the prosecution curiously
opted not to do so. Instead, it relied solely on the testimony of SPO 1 Baltazar -
one which is replete with contradictions.

Third, there are significant irregularities as to how the allegedly recovered

items were processed. A review of the transcript of stenographic notes is
enlightening:

27
TSN, November 14, 2016, p. 13.
28
Records, pp. 8-9.
29
Id. at 18.
30
Id. at 9.

- more -
(158)URES(a)
Jd,
Resolution 8 G.R. No. 249185

SACP AGUILA: And as a Public Prosecutor, I am aware that apart from

marking the initials of the accused, there should be your
signature as well as the date. Now, why is it that there
was no date as well as your signature on that particular
specimen?
WITNESS: I did not put it anymore, sir.

COURT: Why?
WITNESS: I think this marking is enough for me to identify.

COURT: No, but I can always say that it was not you who marked
that one, it was not you who seized that sachet from the
accused?
WITNESS: But during the arrest, the inventory and the markings of
the evidence I was the one who put. .. (interrupted)

COURT: Yes, you put the marking, but how can you convince us
that you were the one who put the marking when your
signature and the date when you put the marking does not
appear on the specimen itself? That is the question of the
Prosecutor. And you want the Court to believe you that
you were the one who seized that, you were the one who
marked that?
WITNESS: In the inventory and Chain of Custody, there is already a
date that indicates ... (interrupted)

COURT: No, but you know on the specimen itself it should be

dated and the marking officer should put his initials on it
so that it will be known who seized the article, when it
was seized.
WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor, I suppose that the Chain of Custody
and the inventory of the evidence is enough to show that
I was the one ... (interrupted)

COURT: You are now putting a doubt on the integrity of the

specimen because you did not put the date, you did
not put your initials on it. And it is possible that
somebody seized that, somebody put the marking not
you.
WITNESS: I am very sure, Your Honor, that I am the one who ...
(interrupted)

COURT: Convince the Court.

WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor, We have the inventory and the Chain
of Custody that indicate that it is me who really ...
(intenupted)

COURT: Why did you not put your initials on the specimen itself?
WITNESS: I think the initials of the suspect are enough to identify
the evidence, Your Honor.

(158)URES(a) - more -
Resolution 9 G.R. No. 249185

COURT: You don't convince me. Continue, Mr. Prosecutor.31

(Emphases supplied.)

Aside from their failure to affix the proper markings on the seized items,
the police officers likewise failed to do the same at the prescribed location, and
in the presence of the required persons, as mandated by Section 21, Article II of
RA 9165. To recap, SPO 1 Baltazar and his team marked the items not at the
place of the arrest, but at the MPD-DAID office. Likewise, it was marked and
photographed without the presence of an elected official, thus:

SACP AGUILA: Who were present when you conducted the inventory?
WITNESS: The investigator, me, the suspect, the media - photo
journalist and other operatives, sir.

SACP AGUILA: And who was the media who was present there?
WITNESS: I remember it is J. Robert Amoroso MPD-Press Corps,
sir.

xxxx

COURT: So, only Amoroso was present when the inventory and
the marking of confiscated items were being made?
WITNESS: We called a barangay official but no one came, Your
Honor.

xxxx

COURT: So, you mean to say only a barangay official can be asked
to be present on the marking and inventory of the
specimens confiscated?
WITNESS: Opo pwede pong barangay official, Your Honor.

COURT: Does not the law say that any elected official can be
present on the inventory and marking of the specimen?
WITNESS: Elected official, Your Honor.

xxxx

COURT: Why you did not call Mayor Estrada or the Vice Mayor
to be present there when you know barangay elected
official was there, is it not? Because the law does not say
that only a barangay official can be summoned to be
present on the marking of evidence. Continue, Mr,
Prosecutor. 32

SPO 1 Baltazar' s explanation as to why no elected official was present

during the marking hardly passes as valid. This is in clear violation of Section
21, Article II of RA 9165, as amended, which states that the seized items shall

31
TSN, November 28, 2016, pp. 9-10.
32
TSN, November 14, 2016, pp. 17-18.

(158)URES(a) - more -
Resolution 10 G.R. No. 249185

be marked, inventoried, and photographed in the presence of the accused, a

representative of the media or the National Prosecution Service, and any elected
public official. Moreover, as to where the items were processed:

SACP AGUILA: By the way, you said that you conduct (,·ic) your
inventory and marking of the specimen at the office of
the DAID?
WITNESS: Yes, sir.

xxxx

COURT: How far is SM CaITiedo from the DAID office? DAID

office in the MPD?
WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor, U.N., 4 to 6 kilometers po siguro.

COURT: If you take a ride from SM Carriedo to the DAID office

how long will it take?
WITNESS: More or less, Your Honor, siguro po pag hindi traffic, 20
minutes.

COURT: Kung ma-traffic?

WITNESS: Siguro one hour. 33

To justify this deviation in procedure, SPOl Baltazar said that they were
trying to avoid causing a commotion and untoward incidents from happening,
since some pedicab drivers and relatives of the accused-appellant were
allegedly grabbing and trying to free the former.

While on its own this justification may seem valid, the Court cannot
ignore the fact that there have been too many irregularities committed by the
police officers, which lead us to doubt the integrity of the seized items.

In People v. Dela Cruz, 34 it was held:

The significance of complying with Section 21 's requirements cannot be

overemphasized. Non-compliance is tantamount to fai lure in establishing identity
of corpus delicti, an essential element of the offenses of illegal sale and illegal
possession of dangerous drugs. By failing to establish an element of these
offenses, non-compliance, will, thus, engender the acquittal of an accused .

In Malillin v. People, 35 the Court emphasized the peculiar nature of drugs

cases and the consequences this entail, thus:

A unique characteristic of narcotic substances is that they are not read ily
identifiable as in fact they are subject to scientific analysis to determine their
composition and nature. The Court cannot reluctantly close its eyes to the

33
TSN, November 28, 2016, pp. 13-14.
34
744 Phil. 8 16, 827 (2014).
35
576 Phil. 576, 588-589 (2008).

(158)URES(a) - more -
Resolution 11 G.R. No. 249185

likelihood, or at least the possibility, that at any of the links in the chain of
custody over the same there could have been tampering, alteration or substitution
of substances from other cases - by accident or otherwise - in which similar
evidence was seized or in which similar evidence was submitted for laboratory
testing. Hence, in authenticating the same, a standard more stringent than that
applied to cases involving objects which are readily identifiable must be applied,
a more exacting standard that entails a chain of custody of the item with suflicient
completeness if only to render it improbable that the original item has either been
exchanged with another or been contaminated or tampered with.

Indeed, while the police officers enjoy a presumption of regularity in the

performance of their duties, "the presumption of regularity is merely just that -
a mere presumption disputable by contrary proof and which when challenged
by the evidence cannot be regarded as binding truth. " 36 In any case, the accused-
appellant likewise enjoys a presumption in his favor -that of innocence, which
can only be overthrown by proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Regrettably,
such quantum of proof has not been met in the present case.

As a final note, the Court wishes to take this opportunity to again remind
law enforcement authorities to be more circumspect in caiTying out operations
and observing procedures meant to curb criminality, especially those involving
dangerous drugs. While the end-goal is laudable, equally important is the
respect to rules and protocols put in place to safeguard every person's sacred
right to life, liberty, and property.

Considering the foregoing, the Court no longer deems it necessary to

discuss the other issues.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The Decision of the

Court of Appeals dated May 23, 2018 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Accused-appellant Salahudin Pindaton y Paniambaan @ "Odin," a.k.a.
Salahoden P. Pendatun, is hereby ACQUITTED for fai lure of the prosecution
to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and is accordingly ordered
immediately released from custody unless he is being held for any other lawful
cause.

Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director General of the

Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. The
Director General is DIRECTED to report the action taken hereon within five
days from receipt of this Resolution.

Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.

SO ORDERED." (Perlas-Bernabe, S.A.J, on official leave; Hernando,

J, Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2887 dated April 8, 2022.)

36
Id. at 593.

(158)URES(a) - more -
lrh
Resolution 12 G.R. No. 249185

erk of Court ~ 4,1

1 7MAY 2022

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (reg)

134 Amorsolo Street
1229 Legaspi Village
Makati City

A TTY. ABDUL A. BASAR (reg)

Counsel for Accused-appellant JUDGMENT DIVISION (x)
Suite 202 Edsol Seyer Bldg. Supreme Court, Manila
I 175 A. Mabini St.
Ermita, Manila PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE (x)
LIBRARY SERVICES (x)
SALAHUDIN PIN DATON y PANIAMBAAN (x) [For uploading pursuant to A.M. No. 12-7-SC]
Accused-Appellant
c/o The Director OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ATTORNEY (x)
Bureau of Corrections OFFICE OF THE REPORTER (x)
I 770 Muntinlupa City PHILIPPINE JUDICIAL ACADEMY (x)
Supreme Court, Manila
THE DIRECTOR (x)
Bureau of Corrections COURT OF APPEALS (x)
I 770 Muntinlupa City Ma. Orosa Street
Ermita, 1000 Manila
HON. PRESIDING JUDGE (reg) CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09388
Regional Trial Court, Branch 20
Manila Please notify the Court ofany change in your address.
(Crim. Case No. 15-321366) GR249 l 85. 04/27/2022(158)URES(a)

(158)URES(a)