people of the philippines vs. ancheta

7/26/2019 People of the Philippines vs. Ancheta

1/13

Republic of the Philippines

Supreme CourtManila

SECOND division

People of the philippines,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

joel anchetayosan, john llorandoy

rigaryo, and juan carlos gernadayhorcajo,

Accused-Appellants.

G.. No. !"#$#!

Present:

CARPIO,J., Chairperson,

BRIO,

!"# CA$%I##O,

P"R"&, and

$"R"O,JJ.

Pro'ul(ated:

)une *+, *

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - D e c i s i o n

SEENO,J.%

Before the Court is an appeal fro' the + ove'ber * !ecision of the Court of Appeals /CA01*2
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/197371.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/197371.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/197371.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/197371.htm#_ftn1


2/13

affir'in( the *3 $epte'ber 4 !ecision of the Ma5ati Cit6 Re(ional %rial Court /R%C0 in Cri'inal

Case os. 7-333, 7-334, and 7-338.12%he R%C !ecision convicted )oel AnchetayOsan, )ohn

#lorandoyRi(ar6o, and )uan Carlos 9ernadayorca;o of violation of Article II of Republic Act o.

8*n as the Co'prehensive !an(erous !ru(s Act of .

?e @uote the narration of facts of the CA as follo>s:

1Version of the Prosecution2

On * Au(ust 7, 1Police Officer /PO0 *2 onorio Mar'one;o, a police officer assi(ned at theMa5ati Police $tation Anti Ille(al !ru(s $pecial Operation %as5 orce /$AI!-$O%0, received a

confidential infor'ation re(ardin( the dru( pushin( activities of a certain alias )o5er at #lorando

Co'pound, Baran(a6 "ast Re'bo, Ma5ati Cit6. %his alias )o5er >as also listed in the said officeDs

>atchlist of suspected dru( pushers.

%hereafter, an anti narcotics operation >as planned b6 the police officers in order to apprehend alias)o5er. A bu6-bust tea' >as for'ed co'prisin( of four police'en and ei(ht 1Ma5ati Anti-!ru(Abuse Council /MA!AC02 operatives fro' Cluster =. PO* Mar'one;o >as desi(nated to act as poseur

bu6er >hile the rest of the tea' served as his bac5-up. %hereafter, five pieces of *-bills >ere

provided and 'ar5ed for use in the operation. PO* Eoltaire "s(uerra li5e>ise coordinated >ith thePhilippine !ru( "nforce'ent A(enc6 /P!"A0 b6 acco'plishin( the necessar6 coordination for'

>hich >as ac5no>led(ed and received b6 the P!"A.

At about =:7= in the afternoon of the sa'e da6, the bu6-bust tea' arrived at #lorando Co'pound, =th

$treet, Baran(a6 "ast Re'bo, Ma5ati Cit6 for the conduct of the bu6 bust operation. As the rest of the

tea' positioned the'selves strate(icall6 in places >here the6 can 'onitor the transaction, PO*

Mar'one;o as the poseur bu6er, acco'panied b6 PO* MendoFa and the infor'ant, entered a sli(htl6opened (ate throu(h an alle6 >a6 >here the6 'et a 'an >ho as5ed the' >here the6 >ere (oin(. %he

infor'ant replied that the6 >ere loo5in( for )o5er as the6 >ere (oin( to purchaseshabufro' the latter.%he 'an as5ed ho> 'uch the6 >ere (oin( to bu6, to >hich the infor'ant ans>ered hi' that he >as to

purchase =.->orth of shabu. %he 'an told the' to >ait for a >hile and then called for )o5er. %he

sa'e 'an thereafter told )o5er that there >ere people >ho >ere (oin( to bu6 fro' hi'. )o5er as5ed

hi' ho> 'uch the6 >ere (oin( to purchase, and the 'an replied that the6 >ere (oin( to purchase=.->orth of shabu. )o5er ca'e out fro' inside the house, and it >as at this instance that PO*

Mar'one;o too5 out the 'ar5ed 'one6. )o5er, in turn, (ave hi' one plastic sachet containin( >hite

cr6stalline po>der. %he 'an the6 'et at the alle6 too5 the 'ar5ed 'one6 fro' hi' and handed it overto )o5er. ?hile the transaction >as on(oin(, the police officers noticed a 'an, 'ore or less + to 7

'eters a>a6 fro' the', >ashin( clothes. After havin( received the bu6 bust 'one6, )o5er faced the'an >ashin( clothes and (ave the latter one plastic sachet containin( >hite cr6stalline substance aspa6'ent for his laundr6 service.

%he transaction havin( been consu''ated, PO* Mar'one;o (ave the pre-arran(ed si(nal of sendin( a'issed call to PO* Eoltaire "s(uerra, one of the bac5-up police officers. PO* MendoFa, upon receivin(

the 'issed call, to(ether >ith MA!AC 1operative )uan $iborboro2, i''ediatel6 >ent inside the house

>here the entrap'ent too5 place and assisted in effectin( the arrest of the accused. PO* MendoFa held

alias )o5er, >ho >as later on identified as accused-appellant )oel Ancheta, and placed hi' under arrest.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/197371.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/197371.htm#_ftn3


3/13

PO* Mar'one;o, on the other hand, arrested the 'an the6 'et at the alle6, >ho >as later identified to

be accused-appellant )ohn #lorando. MA!AC 1operative2 $iborboro, for his part, apprehended the 'an

>ashin( clothes, >ho >as later identified as accused-appellant )uan Carlos 9ernada.

Recovered fro' the possession of accused-appellant Ancheta after the latterDs arrest >ere the 'ar5ed

'one6 and five /=0 other plastic sachets containin( the >hite cr6stalline substance. On the other hand,

accused-appellant 9ernada 6ielded one /*0 plastic sachet of >hite cr6stalline substance >hen re@uestedto e'pt6 the contents of his poc5ets.

After infor'in( all of the accused-appellants of their violations and nature of their arrest as >ell astheir constitutional ri(hts, the6 >ere subse@uentl6 brou(ht to the office of the Ma5ati Cit6 Police

$AI!-$O%.

Conse@uentl6, the plastic sachets containin( >hite cr6stalline substance >ere thereafter brou(ht to the

cri'e laborator6 for ea'ination and anal6sis. %he results of the laborator6 ea'ination revealed that

the substance >as positive for 'eth6la'pheta'ine h6drochloride, other>ise 5no>n as shabu, adan(erous dru(.

Version of the Defense

On the other hand, the defense presented as its >itnesses the three /+0 accused-appellants.

In his defense, the accused-appellant #lorando denied the char(e a(ainst hi' and clai'ed that, at 4:+

p.'. on * Au(ust 7, he >as coo5in( inside his house at =thAvenue, "ast Re'bo, Ma5ati Cit6

>hen three /+0 'en suddenl6 entered his house and po5ed a (un at hi' and fris5ed hi'. ?hen he >assubse@uentl6 arrested b6 the three 'en, accused-appellant #lorando tried to stru((le, but to no avail.

is brother, >ho >as inside the house, tried to intervene, but >as not able to do an6thin(.

Mean>hile, a fe> 'eters a>a6 fro' his house lived his brother-in-la>, accused-appellant Ancheta andthe latterDs adopted son, accused-appellant 9ernada.

%he accused-appellants Ancheta and 9ernada testified that on * Au(ust 7, >hile 9ernada >as atthe 5itchen doin( the dishes and Ancheta >as sleepin( in his roo' >ith his >ife, five /=0 'en bar(ed

into their house >ithout >arnin( and arrested the'. %he6 >ere brou(ht to a >hite vehicle, >here the6

sa> the accused-appellant #lorando, >ho >as li5e>ise apparentl6 ta5en b6 the sa'e (roup.

All the accused-appellants >ere subse@uentl6 brou(ht b6 their un5no>n captors to the latterDs office at

).P. RiFal, $outh Avenue, >here the6 >ere char(ed after>ards for their alle(ed ille(al dru( activities.1+2

%hus, the follo>in( Infor'ations >ere filed b6 the prosecutor before the Ma5ati Cit6 R%C:

Cri'inal Case o. 7-333:

%he undersi(ned Prosecutor accuses &OE' (NC)E*( y OS(N alias +&oer-and &O)N


4/13

''O(NDO y G(/O alias +&ohn-of the cri'e of Eiolation of $ection = in relation to $ection

ithin the

;urisdiction of this onorable Court, the above-na'ed accused, conspirin( and confederatin( to(etherand both of the' 'utuall6 helpin( and aidin( one another, >ithout the correspondin( license or

prescription, did then and there >illfull6, unla>full6 and feloniousl6 sell, (ive a>a6, distribute and

deliver Fero point ten /.*0 (ra' of Meth6la'pheta'ine 6drochloride /shabu0, >hich is a dan(erousdru(.

Cri'inal Case o. 7-334:

%he undersi(ned Prosecutor accuses &OE' (NC)E*( y OS(N alias +&oer-of the cri'e of

0iolation of Section !!, (rticle of .(. "!12, co''itted as follo>s:

%hat on or about the *thda6 of Au(ust 7, in the Cit6 of Ma5ati, Philippines, and >ithin the

;urisdiction of this onorable Court, the above-na'ed accused, not bein( la>full6 authoriFed b6 la>,did then and there >illfull6, unla>full6 and feloniousl6 have in his possession direct custod6 and

control a total >ei(ht of Fero point t>ent6 nine /.80 (ra's of Meth6la'pheta'ine 6drochloride

/shabu0 >hich is a dan(erous dru(, in violation of the above-cited la>.Cri'inal Case o. 7-338:

%he undersi(ned Prosecutor accuses &3(N C('OS GEN(D( y )OC(&Oof the cri'e of

0iolation of Section !!, (rticle of .(. "!12, co''itted as follo>s:

%hat on or about the *thda6 of Au(ust 7, in the Cit6 of Ma5ati, Philippines, and >ithin the

;urisdiction of this onorable Court, the above-na'ed accused, not bein( la>full6 authoriFed b6 la>,did then and there >illfull6, unla>full6 and feloniousl6 have in his possession direct custod6 and

control Fero point Fero three /.+0 (ra' of Meth6la'pheta'ine 6drochloride /shabu0 >hich is a

dan(erous dru(, in violation of the above-cited la>.

Cri'inal Case o. 7-+*=:

%he undersi(ned Prosecutor 1accuses2 &O)N ''O(NDO y G(/O alias +&ae-of the cri'eof Gse of !an(erous !ru( under $ection *= of Republic Act o. 8*s:

%hat so'eti'e on or before or about the *thda6 of Au(ust 7, in the Cit6 of Ma5ati, Philippines,

and >ithin the ;urisdiction of this onorable Court, the above-na'ed accused, not bein( authoriFed b6la> to use dan(erous dru(, and havin( been arrested and found positive for use of Metha'pheta'ine

after a confir'ator6 test, did then and there, >illfull6, unla>full6 and feloniousl6 use

Metha'pheta'ine, a dan(erous dru( in violation of the said la>.

The RTC Ruling

In its *3 $epte'ber 4 !ecision, the Ma5ati Cit6 R%C found accused-appellants (uilt6 of violatin(

Article II of R.A. 8*s: /a0 (nchetaand 'lorando>ere found (uilt6 of violatin( Section

2 /$ale, %radin(, Ad'inistration, !ispensation, !eliver6, !istribution and %ransportation of !an(erous

!ru(s andHor Controlled Precursors and "ssential Che'icals0 and sentenced to suffer life i'prison'ent

and to pa6 a fine of =, /b0 (nchetaand Gernada>ere found (uilt6 of violatin( Section !!


5/13

/Possession of !an(erous !ru(s0 and sentenced to suffer the indeter'inate penalt6 of i'prison'ent of

/*0 6ears and one /*0 da6 as 'ini'u' to fourteen /*70 6ears and one /*0 da6 as 'ai'u' and to pa6

a fine of +, and /c0 'lorando>as found (uilt6 of violatin( Section !2/Gse of !an(erous

!ru(s0 and sentenced to under(o rehabilitation for a period not less than si /as able to establish theeistence of all the ele'ents necessar6 to convict a person of the offenses of ille(al possession and sale

of dan(erous dru(s. It also (ave credence to the arrestin( officersD narration of the incident, as the6

>ere presu'ed to have perfor'ed their official duties in a re(ular 'anner. It then re;ected accused-

appellantsD clai's of fra'e-up. #lorando pled (uilt6 to the char(e of violatin( $ection *= of R.A. 8*hich

the6 >ere found (uilt6 and >ould not render their arrest ille(al or the seiFure of the ite's inad'issible.

$ince accused-appellant #lorando pled (uilt6 of violatin( $ection *= of R.A. 8*ith procedure >as on ;ustifiable (rounds. %he6

also aver that the prosecution >as unable to establish that the apprehendin( tea' properl6 preserved


6/13

the inte(rit6 and evidentiar6 value of the confiscated ite's.

In contrast, the Office of the $olicitor 9eneral /O$90 see5s the affir'ation of the CA !ecision

b6 assertin(1=2that the ele'ents of the cri'es of ille(al sale and possession of dan(erous dru(s >ere

established be6ond reasonable doubt. %he O$9 insists that the positive testi'onies of the arrestin(

enforcers carr6 'ore >ei(ht than the ne(ative assertions of accused-appellants, especiall6 because the

officers >ere presu'ed to have perfor'ed their duties re(ularl6. It then 'aintains that there is no

indication that the arrestin( officers >ere i'pelled b6 i'proper 'otive >hen the6 testified a(ainst

accused-appellants.

On the issue of nonco'pliance >ith $ection * of R.A. 8*e eplained that the nature of a bu6-bust operation

necessitates a strin(ent application of the procedural safe(uards specificall6 crafted b6 Con(ress in

R.A. 8*e ta5e note that the present case stemmed from a 4uy54ust operation conducted b6

the $AI!-$O%. ?e thus recall our pronounce'ent inPeople v. Garcia:

A bu6-bust operation (ave rise to the present case. ?hile this 5ind of

operation has been proven to be an effective >a6 to flush out ille(al

transactions that are other>ise conducted covertl6 and in secrec6, a 4uy5

4ust operation has a significant do6nside that has not escaped the

attention of the framers of the la6. t is suscepti4le to police a4use,

the most notorious of 6hich is its use as a tool for e7tortion.InPeoplev. Tan, this Court itself reco(niFed that by the very nature of anti-

narcotics operations, the need for entrapment procedures, the use of

shady characters as informants, the ease ith hich stic!s of mari"uana

or grams of heroin can be planted in poc!ets of or hands of unsuspectingprovincial hic!s, and the secrecy that inevitably shrouds all drug deals,

the possibility of abuse is great. Thus, courts have been exhorted to be

extra vigilant in trying drug cases lest an innocent person is made to

suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses. Accordin(l6,

specific procedures relating to the sei8ure and custody of drugs have

4een laid do6n in the la6 9.(. No. "!12: for the police to strictly

follo6. %he prosecution must adduce evidence that these procedures

have 4een follo6ed in provin( the ele'ents of the defined offense.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/197371.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/197371.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/197371.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/197371.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/197371.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/197371.htm#_ftn8


7/13

/"'phasis supplied and citations o'itted.0

$ection * of R.A. 8*


8/13

?e have reiterated that this savin( clause applies onl6 >here the prosecution reco(niFed the

procedural lapses, and thereafter eplained the cited ;ustifiable (rounds after >hich, the prosecution

'ust sho> that the inte(rit6 and evidentiar6 value of the evidence seiFed have been preserved. %o

repeat, nonco'pliance >ith the re@uired procedure >ill not necessaril6 result in the ac@uittal of theaccused if: /*0 the noncompliance is on justifia4le grounds and /0 the integrity and theevidentiary value of the sei8ed items are properly preserved 4y the apprehending team .

Accordin(l6, despite the presumption of regularity in the performance of the official duties of la6enforcers, >e stress that the step-b6-step procedure outlined under R.A. 8*ith the procedural safe(uards under R.A. 8*as even an6 atte'pt to contact a representative fro' the 'edia and the!O), and an elected public official. o>here can it be found that the 'ar5in( of the ite's >as done in

the presence of anyof the said third-part6 representatives. In all these 'a;or lapses, no one (ave so

'uch as an eplanation of >h6 the procedure >as not follo>ed, or >hether there >as a ;ustifiable

(round for failin( to do so. %he arrestin( officers and the prosecution si'pl6 did not bother discussin(

these 'atters. %he O$9 does not dispute these assertions and instead counters that nonco'pliance >as

not fatal to the prosecutionDs case. It then ar(ues that the 'ar5in( of the confiscated ite's >as

sufficient to protect the identit6 of the corpus delicti.

%hou(h >e have reco(niFed that 1'2inor deviations fro' the procedures under R.A. 8*ould not

auto'aticall6 eonerate an accused,142>e have also declared that >hen there is (ross disre(ard of

the procedural safe(uards prescribed in the substantive la> /R.A. 8*


9/13

perfor'ance of official duties, for a (ross, s6ste'atic, or deliberate disre(ard of the procedural

safe(uards effectivel6 produces an irre(ularit6 in the perfor'ance of official duties.1*2Accordin(l6,

the prosecution is dee'ed to have failed to full6 establish the ele'ents of the cri'es char(ed, creatin(

reasonable doubt on the cri'inal liabilit6 of the accused.1**2

Indeed, it is the preservation of the inte(rit6 and evidentiar6 value of the seiFed ite's that is of ut'ost

i'portance in deter'inin( the ad'issibilit6 of the evidence presented in court, especiall6 in cases of

bu6-bust operations. %hat is >h6 Con(ress sa> fit to fashion a detailed procedure in order to ensure

that the inte(rit6 and evidentiar6 value of the confiscated ite's >ould not be co'pro'ised. %he

'ar5in( of the seiFed ite's >as onl6 a piece in a detailed set of procedural safe(uards e'bodied in

R.A. 8*ere unable to co'pl6 >ith the other re@uire'ents, the6 >ere under

obli(ation to eplain >h6 the procedure >as not follo>ed and prove that the reason provided a

;ustifiable (round. Other>ise, the re@uisites under the la> >ould 'erel6 be fanc6 orna'ents that 'a6

or 'a6 not be disre(arded b6 the arrestin( officers at their o>n convenience.

?e no> raise serious concerns about the dru( enforce'ent operations of the arrestin( officers. Records

reveal that P!"A and the Ma5ati Cit6 Police $AI!-$O% had been 5eepin( accused-appellant Ancheta

under surveillance. PO* Mar'one;o testified that he >as alread6 on the >atch list of suspected dru(

pushers. Ancheta >as 5no>n to have been re(ularl6 sellin(shabuat the sa'e location in >hich he >as

arrested. Accused-appellants >ere arrested >ithin the fa'il6 co'pound of the #lorandos. %hese

particular facts bolster the i'pression that the bu6-bust operation >as a forthco'in( action in >hich

the arrestin( officers had a'ple ti'e to prepare, plan, coordinate, and follo> processes. %heir inabilit6,

then, to follo> the le(al procedure in $ection * under the present circu'stances raises 'ore @uestions

on the facts surroundin( the bu6-bust operation. Conse@uentl6, the need to observe procedural

safe(uards outlined in R.A. 8*ere present durin( the 'ar5in( of the ite's. %hese errors >ere
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/197371.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/197371.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/197371.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/197371.htm#_ftn12


10/13

eacerbated b6 the fact that the officers had a'ple ti'e to co'pl6 >ith these le(al re@uire'ents, as

the6 had alread6 'onitored and put accused-appellants on their >atch list. %he totalit6 of these

circu'stances has led us to conclude that the apprehendin( officers deliberatel6 disre(arded the le(al

procedure under R.A. 8*hich >e too5 note

of the statistics relatin( to dis'issal and ac@uittal in dan(erous dru(s cases. %here >e 'entioned that

1u2nder P!"A records, the dis'issals and ac@uittals accounted for =, a'on( others.1*+2?e then noted an

international stud6 conducted in 4, >hich sho>ed that out of *+,hich >ere cases of si'ple possession0 the char(es

a(ainst the rest >ere dis'issed or the accused >ere [email protected]*72Our o>n data1*=2 on the cases

filed >ith us fro' < to ** sho> that, out of those in >hich this Court 'ade ac@uittals and

reversals, 4=J involved failure of the prosecution to establish the arrestin( officersD co'pliance >ith

the procedural re@uire'ents outlined in $ection * of R.A. 8* courts are constrained to 'a5e ac@uittals, dis'issals, or reversals because of

the inadvertent failure of arrestin( officers and the prosecution to establish co'pliance or ;ustif6

nonco'pliance >ith a statutor6 procedure. It is even 'ore troublin( >hen those cases involve

apparentl6 5no>n or lon(-suspected dru( pushers. Con(ress >as clear in its declaration on the

eradication of the dru( 'enace pla(uin( our countr6. Ket, also fir' and strin(ent is its 'andate to

observe the le(al safe(uards under R.A. 8*h6 >e have e'phasiFed countless

ti'es that courts 'ust re'ain vi(ilant in their disposition of cases related to dan(erous dru(s. Also, >e

have alread6 called on the police, P!"A, and the prosecution to reinforce and revie> the conduct of

bu6-bust operations and the presentation of evidence.1*)EE?OE, the appealed + ove'ber * !ecision of the CA, >hich affir'ed the *3

$epte'ber 4 !ecision of the Ma5ati Cit6 R%C, is SE* (SDE. Accused-appellants )oel Anchetay

Osan, )ohn #lorandoyRi(ar6o, and )uan Carlos 9ernadayorca;o are hereb6 (C@3**EDof the

char(es in Cri'inal Case os. 7-333, 7-334, and 7-338 on the (round of reasonable doubt.

%he !irector of the Bureau of Corrections is hereb6 ODEEDto i''ediatel6 E'E(SEaccused-

appellants fro' custod6, unless the6 are detained for so'e other la>ful cause.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/197371.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/197371.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/197371.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/197371.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/197371.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/197371.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/197371.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/197371.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/197371.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/197371.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/197371.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/197371.htm#_ftn17


11/13

#et a cop6 of this !ecision be furnished the Office of the Court Ad'inistrator for circulation to all

courts.

SO ODEED.

A(( 'O3DES P. (. SEENO

Associate )ustice

>E CONC3%

(N*ONO *. C(PO

$enior Associate )ustice

Chairperson

(*3O D. BON

Associate )ustice

A((NO C. DE' C(S*''O

Associate )ustice

&OSE PO*3G(' PEE

Associate )ustice


12/13

CE*?C(*ON

I certif6 that the conclusions in the above !ecision had been reached in consultation before the

case >as assi(ned to the >riter of the opinion of the CourtDs !ivision.

(N*ONO *. C(PO

$enior Associate )ustice

/Per $ection *, R.A. 8ever, since accused-appellant #lorando pled (uilt6 of

violatin( $ec. *= of R.A. 8*hich the6 filed >ith the CA /rollo, p. 7*0.

1=2Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee at


13/13

October 8 Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee, it filed >ith the CA /rollo, p. 7*0.

1

people of the philippines vs. ancheta

Documents