SECOND DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 227217, February 12, 2020 ]

JESSIE TOLENTINO Y SAMIA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

RESPONDENT.

DECISION

REYES, A., JR., J.:

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing
the Decision2 dated April 14, 2016 and Resolution3 dated September 9, 2016 of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06902, which affirmed the Decision dated April 30, 2014 of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Tarlac City, Branch 64, in Criminal Case No. 16068, finding Jessie Tolentino y
Samia (petitioner) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5,4 Article II of Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

The Facts

In an Information dated February 16, 2009, the petitioner was charged with Illegal Sale of Dangerous
Drugs, defined and penalized under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.5 The accusatory portion of
the Information reads:

That on or about February 13, 2009 at around 1:30 o'clock in the afternoon, in the City of Tarlac, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused without being authorized by
law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally sell, trade and deliver three (3) heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachet containing dried Marijuana fruiting tops, a dangerous drugs (sic)[,] to a
poseur buyer, weighing 2.700 grams more or less.

CONTRARY TO LAW.6

On April 15, 2009, the petitioner was arraigned and entered a plea of not guilty. Pre-trial was held on
June 2, 2009. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.7

Version of the Prosecution

On February 13, 2009, at around 1:30 p.m., members of the Task Force Bantay Droga, including
Senior Police Officer 2 Jorge G. Andasan, Jr. (SPO2 Andasan) and SPO1 Eduardo T. Navarro
(SPO1 Navarro), with the participation of Romeo Dela Pena (Dela Pena) as the poseur-buyer,
conducted a buy-bust operation in Barangay Ungot, Tarlac City against one alias "Kabasi," who was
later identified as the petitioner. Three (3) marked one hundred peso bills, with serial numbers
GQ000707, LN468151 and FW278110, were prepared for use in the operation.8 Prior to their arrival
in Barangay Ungot, Dela Pena informed the petitioner that he wanted to buy P300.00-worth
of marijuana. Upon arrival, Dela Pena was only able to purchase P100.00-worth of marijuana due to
stock shortage.9 After the successful drug trade, Dela Pena grabbed the petitioner which was the
prearranged signal to effect an arrest. The petitioner was then informed of his rights and the buy-bust
team proceeded to confiscate the marked money and the three (3) transparent plastic sachets
containing marijuana. Petitioner was then brought to the house of the barangay captain of Ungot and
SPO1 Navarro conducted an inventory of the said items thereat. During the inventory, photographs
were taken and the confiscated items were marked as "ETN", "ETN-1", and "ETN-2", respectively.
Subsequently, SPO1 Navarro brought the suspected drugs to the crime laboratory where they were
received by Senior Inspector Jebie Timario. According to SPO1 Navarro, from the time the inventory
was conducted until the subject items were brought to the laboratory for analysis, he had exclusive
possession of the same.10

On cross examination, SPO1 Navarro admitted that although he did not actually witness the drug
deal, he was positioned approximately 50 meters away from them and that he saw Dela Pena grab
the petitioner which was the pre-arranged signal that an exchange took place.11
SPO2 Andasan, one of the arresting officers involved in the buy-bust operation, corroborated the
testimony of SPO1 Navarro as to the circumstances pertaining to the arrest of the petitioner.
According to SPO2 Andasan, when the illicit drug deal occurred, he was positioned only about 15
meters away. When the petitioner was arrested, SPO1 Navarro read him his rights and then Dela
Pena handed over the confiscated items to SPO1 Navarro. Thereafter, the arresting team proceeded
to the house of the barangay captain to conduct inventory.12

Dela Pena, the designated poseur-buyer in the buy-bust operation, testified that he knew the
petitioner because he had previous dealings with the latter at the market. On the day of the operation,
he went to the house of the petitioner located in Barangay Ungot and transacted with the latter. When
the exchange was consummated, he grabbed the petitioner and thereafter, SPO1 Navarro and SPO2
Andasan arrested the latter.13

Version of the Defense

Petitioner testified that at around 1:30 p.m. on February 13, 2009, he was away from home as he was
working with a certain Roberto Dela Rosa and making door jambs. When his son informed him that
there were visitors at their house, he immediately went home. When he arrived at his house in
Barangay Ungot, a certain Bong Vargas (Vargas) alighted from a tricycle and asked him for
some marijuana but the petitioner replied that he was not familiar with the item. Vargas fled and
DelaPena appeared, pointed a gun at the petitioner and his son, fired the gun twice and handcuffed
the petitioner. While handcuffed, the petitioner saw SPO2 Andasan and SPO1 Navarro
with marijuana in their possession. He was then brought to the house of the barangay captain of
Ungot where he was made to sign a document. Subsequently, the petitioner was taken to a nipa
house where a certain Eduardo General hit him on the head and was made to sign more documents.
Thereafter, he was placed under detention.14

Petitioner filed a case against SPO2 Andasan and SPO1 Navarro because he believed that he was
wrongfully accused and detained. He also affirmed that he executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay dated
January 27, 2010 wherein he denied having sold illegal drugs.15

Jaycee Tolentino (Jaycee), another witness for the defense and the son of the petitioner,
corroborated his father's testimony that the latter did not sell illegal drugs. According to Jaycee, the
petitioner refused to accept the P100.00-bill Dela Pena attempted to give his father. When his father
was handcuffed, the latter was frisked by Dela Pena but no illegal items were found in his
possession. After the arrest, he went with his father and the arresting officers to the house of the
barangay captain of Ungot and thereat, SPO1 Navarro produced three plastic sachets and a
P100.00-bill. Photographs were taken thereafter. Jaycee also affirmed that he executed
a Sinumpaang Salaysay stating what he witnessed when his father was arrested.16

Julie Tolentino, another witness for the defense, likewise corroborated the allegation that the
petitioner filed an administrative case against SPO2 Andasan and SPO1 Navarro.17

Jimmy Estrada (Estrada), the final witness for the defense, testified that at around 1:30 p.m. on
February 13, 2009, he was outside the house of his friend who also lives in Barangay Ungot. The
said house was approximately 20 meters away from the house of the petitioner. According to
Estrada, he saw Jaycee and the petitioner talking and when the latter left, a tricycle appeared and
one of the passengers thereof approached the petitioner and pointed a gun at the latter and then fired
it in the air. Later, a motorcycle with two passengers arrived and one of the passengers raised his
hand holding a small plastic sachet and said "positive."18

On April 30, 2014, the RTC rendered a Judgment finding the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime charged. The trial court opined that the essential elements of the crime charged
were established by the evidence of the prosecution.19 The decretal portion of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this Court finds the [petitioner] guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime charged (Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs) and hereby sentences him to suffer the
penalty of life imprisonment. Likewise, he is ordered to pay a fine of P500,000.00

The Branch Clerk of Court is hereby directed to immediately transmit to the PDEA the subject item for
proper disposal.20
On appeal, the CA affirmed the findings of the RTC and held that on the basis of the evidence
presented by the prosecution, there is no iota of doubt that the identity and integrity of the seized
dangerous drugs or the corpus delicti have been safeguarded and preserved.21 The appellate court
further ratiocinated that it is of no moment that representatives from the Department of Justice (DOJ)
and the media were not present to witness the seizure and inventory of these items because the
Implementing Rules and Regulation (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 offers flexibility with regard to compliance
with the "Chain of Custody" rule, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved.22 The decretal portion of the Decision23 dated April 14, 2016 reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Appeal is DENIED for lack of merit. The challenged
Decision dated 30 April 2014 of the [RTC], Branch 64 of Tarlac City in Criminal Case No. 16068
is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.24

Hence, the present petition.

The issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the petitioner's conviction for Illegal Sale of
Dangerous Drugs should be upheld.

Ruling of the Court

There is merit to the petition.

In order to sustain a conviction for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, defined and penalized under
Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the law demands the establishment of 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. What is important is that the sale transaction of
drugs actually took place and that the object of the transaction is properly presented as evidence in
court and is shown to be the same drugs seized from the accused.25

Petitioner maintains that he should be acquitted for failure of the prosecution to establish every link in
the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs and its failure to comply with the procedure
outlined in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.

In the prosecution of drugs cases, the procedural safeguards that are embodied in Section 21 of R.A.
No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640,26 are material, as their compliance affects the corpus
delicti which is the dangerous drug itself and warrants the identity and integrity of the substances and
other evidence that are seized by the apprehending officers. Specifically, Section 21 as amended
provides the following rules:

SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs,
Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. - The PDEA shall take charge and have
custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and
essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so
confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, controlled
precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment
shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items
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, with an elected public official
and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media 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, finally, That non-compliance of 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 and
custody over said items.
x x x x (Emphases ours)

It bears emphasis that the amendment that was introduced by R.A. No. 10640 in Section 21
prescribes a physical inventory and photograph of the seized items 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, plus two other witnesses, particularly, (1) an elected public official, and (2) a representative
of the National Prosecution Service or the media, who shall sign the copies of the inventory and be
given a copy thereof. Proponents of the amendment recognized that the strict implementation of the
original Section 2127 of R.A. No. 9165 could be impracticable for the law enforcers'
compliance,28 and that the stringent requirements could unduly hamper their activities towards drug
eradication. The amendment then substantially included the saving clause that was actually already
in the IRR of the former Section 21, indicating that non-compliance with the law's 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 seizures and custody
over confiscated items.

The Court reiterates though that a failure to fully satisfy the requirements under Section 21 must be
strictly premised on "justifiable grounds." The primary rule that commands a satisfaction of the
instructions prescribed by the statute stands. The value of the rule is significant; its noncompliance
has serious effects and is fatal to the prosecution's case. As the Court declared in People v. Que:29

People v. Morales explained that failure to comply with paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of [R.A.
No.] 9165 implie[s] a concomitant failure on the part of the prosecution to establish the identity of
the corpus delicti. It "produce[s] doubts as to the origins of the [seized paraphernalia]."

Compliance with Section 21's chain of custody requirements ensures the integrity of the seized items.
non-compliance with them [tarnishes] the credibility of the corpus delicti around which prosecutions
under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act revolve. Consequently, they also tarnish the very
claim that an offense against the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act was committed. x x
x.30 (Citations omitted)

In the same vein, the Court, in People v. Mendoza,31 explained that the presence of these witnesses
would not only preserve an unbroken chain of custody but also prevent the possibility of tampering
with, or "planting" of, evidence, viz.:

Without the insulating presence of the representative from the media or the [DOJ], or any elected
public official during the seizure and marking of the [seized drugs], the evils of switching, "planting" or
contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of [R.A.]
No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) again reared their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and
credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the [said drugs] that were evidence herein of the corpus
delicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused. x x x.32

Since the offense subject of this petition was committed before the amendment introduced by R.A.
No. 10640, the old provisions of Section 21 and its IRR should apply, 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[.]

Under the law, a physical inventory and photograph of the items that were purportedly seized from
the accused should have been made at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the
apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable. The entire procedure must likewise be made in
the presence of the accused or his representative or counsel and three witnesses, namely: (1) an
elected public official; (2) a representative from the DOJ; AND (3) a representative from the media.
These individuals shall then be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy
thereof.

Here, as culled from the records and highlighted by the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses
themselves, only one of the required witnesses was present during the inventory stage - the
barangay captain of Ungot. Neither was it shown nor alleged by the police officers that earnest efforts
were made to secure the attendance of these witnesses. To recapitulate, the buy-bust operation
commenced around 1:30 p.m. of February 13, 2009. Given the time of the surveillance and arrest,
the police officers had more than enough time to secure the attendance of the witnesses had they
really wanted to.

In People v. Reyes,33 the Court enumerated certain instances when absence of the required
witnesses may be justified, viz.:

It must be emphasized that the prosecution must be able to prove a justifiable ground in omitting
certain requirements provided in Sec. 21 such as, but not limited to the following: (1) media
representatives are not available at that time or that the police operatives had no time to alert the
media due to the immediacy of the operation they were about to undertake, especially if it is done in
more remote areas; (2) the police operatives, with the same reason, failed to find an available
representative of the National Prosecution Service; (3) the police officers, due to time constraints
brought about by the urgency of the operation to be undertaken and in order to comply with the
provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code in the timely delivery of prisoners, were not able
to comply with all the requisites set forth in Section 21 of R.A. [No.] 9165.34 (Citation omitted)

The above-ruling was again reiterated by the Court in People v. Sipin35 where it provided additional
grounds that would serve as valid justification for the relaxation of the rule on mandatory
witnesses, viz.:

The prosecution never alleged and proved that the presence of the required witnesses was not
obtained for any of the following reasons, such as: (1) their attendance was impossible because the
place of arrest was a remote area; (2) their safety during the inventory and photograph of the seized
drugs was threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of the accused or any person/s acting for
and in his/her behalf; (3) the elected official themselves were involved in the punishable acts sought
to be apprehended; (4) earnest efforts to secure the presence of a DOJ or media representative and
an elected public official within the period required under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code
prove futile through no fault of the arresting officers, who face the threat of being charged with
arbitrary detention; or (5) time constraints and urgency of the anti-drug operations, which often rely
on tips of confidential assets, prevented the law enforcers from obtaining the presence of the required
witnesses even before the offenders could escape.36 (Citation omitted and emphasis deleted)

The failure of the police officers to provide a reasonable excuse or justification for the absence of the
other witnesses clearly magnified the lack of concrete effort on their part to comply with the
requirements of Section 21. The absence of these witnesses constitutes a substantial gap in the
chain of custody and raises doubts on the integrity and evidentiary value of the items that were
allegedly seized from the petitioner. It militates against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The law deserves faithful compliance, especially by the police officers who ought to have known the
proper procedure in the seizure and handling of the confiscated items, especially since the small
volume of the suspected drugs made it easier for the items to be corrupted or tampered with. It is
only for justifiable and unavoidable grounds that deviations from the required procedure is excused.

In People v. Relato,37 the Court explained that in a prosecution of the sale and possession of
dangerous drugs prohibited under R.A. No. 9165, the State not only carries the heavy burden of
proving the elements of the offense, but also bears the obligation to prove the corpus delicti, failing in
which the State will not discharge its basic duty of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt. It is settled that the State does not establish the corpus delicti when the prohibited substance
subject of the prosecution is missing or when substantial gaps in the chain of custody of the
prohibited substance raise grave doubts about the authenticity of the prohibited substance presented
as evidence in court. Any gap renders the case for the State less than complete in terms of proving
the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.38
The Court is well aware that a perfect chain of custody is almost always impossible to achieve and so
it has previously ruled that minor lapses or deviations from the prescribed procedure are excused so
long as it can be shown by the prosecution that the arresting officers put in their best effort to comply
with the same and the justifiable ground for non-compliance is proven as a fact.

In the recent case of People v. Lim,39 the Court, speaking through now Chief Justice Diosdado M.
Peralta, reiterated that testimonies of the prosecution witnesses must establish in detail that earnest
effort to coordinate with and secure the presence of the required witnesses was made. In addition, it
pointed out that given the increasing number of poorly built up drug-related cases in the courts'
docket, Section 1 (A.1.10) of the Chain of Custody IRR should be enforced as a mandatory policy.
The pertinent portions of the decision reads:

To conclude, judicial notice is taken of the fact that arrests and seizures related to illegal drugs are
typically made without a warrant; hence, subject to inquest proceedings. Relative thereto, Sections 1
(A.1.10) of the Chain of Custody [IRR] directs:

A.1.10. Any justification or explanation in cases of non-compliance with the requirements of Section
21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, shall be clearly stated in the sworn statements/affidavits of the
apprehending/seizing officers, as well as the steps taken to preserve the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized/confiscated items. Certification or record of coordination for operating units other
than the PDEA pursuant to Section 86 (a) and (b), Article IX of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 shall be
presented.

While the above-quoted provision has been the rule, it appears that it has not been practiced in most
cases elevated before Us. Thus, in order to weed out early on from the courts' already congested
docket any orchestrated or poorly built-up drug-related cases, the following should henceforth be
enforced as a mandatory policy:

1. In the sworn statements/affidavits, the apprehending/seizing officers must state their

compliance with the requirements of Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, and its
IRR.

2. In case of non-observance of the provision, the apprehending/seizing officers must state the
justification or explanation therefor as well as the steps they have taken in order to preserve
the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized/confiscated items.

3. If there is no justification or explanation expressly declared in the sworn statements or

affidavits, the investigating fiscal must not immediately file the case before the court. Instead,
he or she must refer the case for further preliminary investigation in order to determine the
(non) existence of probable cause.

4. If the investigating fiscal filed the case despite such absence, the court may exercise its
discretion to either refuse to issue a commitment order (or warrant of arrest) or dismiss the
case outright for lack of probable cause in accordance with Section 5, Rule 112, Rules of
Court.40 (Citations omitted)

Simply put, the prosecution cannot simply invoke the saving clause found in Section 21 - that the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items have been preserved - without justifying their
failure to comply with the requirements stated therein. Even the presumption as to regularity in the
performance by police officers of their official duties cannot prevail when there has been a clear and
deliberate disregard of procedural safeguards by the police officers themselves. The Court's ruling
in People v. Umipang41 is instructive on the matter:

Minor deviations from the procedures under R.A. [No.] 9165 would not automatically exonerate an
accused from the crimes of which he or she was convicted. This is especially true when the lapses in
procedure were "recognized and explained in terms of justifiable grounds." There must also be a
showing "that the police officers intended to comply with the procedure but were thwarted by some
justifiable consideration/reason." However, when there is gross disregard of the procedural
safeguards prescribed in the substantive law (R.A. [No.] 9165), serious uncertainty is generated
about the identity of the seized items that the prosecution presented in evidence. This uncertainty
cannot be remedied by simply invoking the presumption of regularity in the performance of official
duties, for a gross, systematic, or deliberate disregard of the procedural safeguards effectively
produces an irregularity in the performance of official duties. As a result, the prosecution is deemed
to have failed to fully establish the elements of the crimes charged, creating reasonable doubt on the
criminal liability of the accused.

For the arresting officers' failure to adduce justifiable grounds, we are led to conclude from the totality
of the procedural lapses committed in this case that the arresting officers deliberately disregarded the
legal safeguards under R.A. [No.] 9165. These lapses effectively produced serious doubts on the
integrity and identity of the corpus delicti, especially in the face of allegations of frame-up. Thus, for
the foregoing reasons, we must resolve the doubt in favor of accused-appellant, "as every fact
necessary to constitute the crime must be established by proof beyond reasonable doubt."

As a final note, we reiterate our past rulings calling upon the authorities "to exert greater efforts in
combating the drug menace using the safeguards that our lawmakers have deemed necessary for
the greater benefit of our society." The need to employ a more stringent approach to scrutinizing the
evidence of the prosecution - especially when the pieces of evidence were derived from a buy-bust
operation - "redounds to the benefit of the criminal justice system by protecting civil liberties and at
the same time instilling rigorous discipline on prosecutors."42 (Citations omitted)

The prosecution's failure to justify its non-compliance with the requirements found in Section 21,
specifically, the presence of the three required witnesses during the actual inventory of the seized
items, is fatal to their case.

It is mandated by no less than the Constitution43 that an accused in a criminal case shall be
presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. In People v. Hilario,44 the Court ruled that the
prosecution bears the burden to overcome such presumption. If the prosecution fails to discharge this
burden, the accused deserves a judgment of acquittal. On the other hand, if the existence of proof
beyond reasonable doubt is established by the prosecution, the accused gets a guilty verdict. In order
to merit conviction, the prosecution must rely on the strength of its own evidence and not on the
weakness of evidence presented by the defense.45

All told, the Court finds the errors committed by the apprehending team as sufficient to cast serious
doubts on the guilt of the petitioner.1a₩phi1 Absent faithful compliance with Section 21, Article II of
R.A. No. 9165 which is primarily intended to, first, preserve the integrity and the evidentiary value of
the seized items in drugs cases, and second, to safeguard accused persons from unfounded and
unjust convictions, an acquittal becomes the proper recourse.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated April 14, 2016 of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06902, which affirmed the Judgment dated April 30,
2014 of the Regional Trial Court of Tarlac City, Branch 64 in Criminal Case No. 16068, finding
petitioner Jessie Tolentino y Samia guilty of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, is
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Jessie Tolentino y Samia is ACQUITTED for failure
of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ORDERED to IMMEDIATELY RELEASE the petitioner
from detention, unless he is being lawfully held in custody for any other reason, and to inform this
Court of his action hereon within five (5) days from receipt of this Decision.

SO ORDERED.

Perlas-Bernabe, Senior Associate Justice, (Chairperson), Hernando, Inting, and Delos Santos, JJ.,
concur.