no buy-bust operation conducted+lawphil Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISIO G.R. No. 185717
June 8, 2011
Plaintiff-!ppellee" PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-!ppellee" #s$ GARRY E LA CRU! " ELA CRU!, !ccused-!ppellant$ CRU!, !ccused-!ppellant$ D%&ISIO #ELASCO, JR.,
J.:
T$e C%&e This is an appeal fro' the Decision ( dated )une *" , of the &ourt of !ppeals .&!/ in &!-0$R$ &R-1$&$ o$ ,2,2" which affir'ed in toto the toto the February " ,2 Decision , in &ri'inal &ase o$ 3*-((2(4 *-(( 2(4 of the Re5ional Trial &ourt .RT&/" 6ranch , in 3ue7on &ity$ The RT& found accused 0arry de la &ru7 y dela &ru7 .0arry/ 5uilty beyond reasonable doubt of #iolatin5 Section 8" !rticle II of Republic !ct o$ .R!/ 9(:8 or the &o'prehensi#e Dan5erous Dru5s !ct of ,,$ T$e F%'(& In an Infor'ation * filed on )une *" ,*" accused was indicted for the cri'e alle5edly co''itted as follows; That on or about the ,9th of May" ,*" in 3ue7on &ity" Philippines" Philippines" the said accused" not bein5 authori7ed by law to sell" dispense" deli#er" transport or distribute any dan5erous dru5" did" then and there" willfully and unlawfully sell" dispense" deli#er" transport" distribute or act as bro
!?$ @pon arrai5n'ent on )uly ," ,*" accused pleaded Anot 5uiltyA to the abo#e char5e$ 4 Tria Triall8 on the 'erits ensued$ #e)&*on #e)&* on o+ ($e P)o&e'u(*on !fter conductin5 sur#eillance for for a wee<" the Station Station Dru5 %nforce'ent @nit in >a >o'a" >o'a" 3ue7on &ity planned a buy-bust operation a5ainst a certain 0arry who was in the 6aran5ay ?atch >ist$ The operation was coordinated with the Philippine Dru5 %nforce'ent !5ency .PD%!/$ .PD%!/$
On May ,9" ,*" at around 9; a$'$" the stationBs Officer-in-&har5e .OI&/" Police Inspector Oli#er Villanue#a .PCInsp$ Villanue#a/" 5a#e a briefin5 on the buy-bust operation$ Police O fficer , %dcel Ibasco .PO, Ibasco/ was desi5nated as poseur-buyer" while PO( Roderic< Valencia .PO( Valencia/" PO( !lfredo Mabutol" and PO, Ronald Pascual were assi5ned as bac<-up operati#es$ Their infor'ant attended the briefin5$ Thereafter" the buy-bust tea' proceeded to 6ia<-na-6ato corner Mauban Streets" 3ue7on &ity and arri#ed there at around 9;* a$'$ The infor'ant introduced PO, Ibasco to the accused" who was standin5 in front of a shanty" as wantin5 to buy shabu$ The accused aseonard )abonillo .%n5r$ )abonillo/$ The laboratory result confir'ed that the substance was positi#e for 'ethyla'pheta'ine hydrochloride or shabu$ Only PO, Ibasco and PO( Valencia testified for the prosecution durin5 the trial$ The testi'ony of %n5r$ )abonillo was dispensed with upon stipulation by the defense$ #e)&*on o+ ($e e+en&e The accused denied sellin5 shabu to PO, Ibasco$ In short" the accused used the defense of denial and alle5ed a fra'e-up by the arrestin5 officers$ The accused testified that he was arrested on May ,9" ,* at around 9; a$'$ inside his house at 6aran5ay Manresa" 3ue7on &ity while he was alone drin
!nother witness" Marbelita &ollado >epiten .>epiten/" testified that she was at the terrace of her house on (*8 Manba St$" Manresa" San F rancisco del Monte" 3ue7on &ity" when she noticed the accused tal! &R@H 5uilty beyond reasonable doubt of a #iolation of Section 8" !rticle II of R$!$ o$ 9(:8" and hereby sentencin5 hi' to suffer the penalty of >IF% IMPRISOM%T and to pay a fine in the a'ount of FIV% 1@DR%D T1O@S!D .P8"$/ P%SOS$ SO ORD%R%D$ In con#ictin5 the accused" the RT& relied on and 5a#e credence to the testi'ony of prosecution witnesses PO, Ibasco and PO( Valencia$ &itin5 People v. Jubail "2 which enu'erated the ele'ents reuired to be established by the prosecution for the ille5al sale of prohibited dru5s" the trial court found that the prosecution had established the ele'ents of the cri'e$ The RT& pointed out that 6uenca'ino 'ay" indeed" ha#e called the police to arrest a certain ATaba"A an alle5ed pusher in the area" but he was not present when the accused was arrested$ The trial court liepiten" who testified that she saw the accused tal
The &! upheld the findin5s of the trial court that the essential ele'ents reuired for the con#iction of an accused for #iolation of Sec$ 8" !rt$ II of R! 9(:8 were present in the instant case$ The appellate court brushed aside the irre5ularities raised by accused-appellant by puttin5 pre'iu' credence on the testi'onies of the arrestin5 police officers" who positi#ely identified accused-appellant in open court$ One with the trial court" the &! found no i'proper 'oti#e on the part of the police officers who" it said" were re5ularly perfor'in5 their official duties$ 6esides" relyin5 on People v. Barlaan"( the &! held that the irre5ularities raised that there was no coordination with the PD%! and that no in#entory was 'ade and no photo5raph taepiten" deser#ed scant consideration #is--#is the positi#e identification by the arrestin5 officers who arrested hi' in fla5rante delicto$ !nent the uestioned chain of custody" the &! found it unbroieu of Supple'ental 6rief/" (( while the Office of the Solicitor 0eneral .OS0/" representin5 the People of the Philippines" sub'itted neither a Manifestation nor a Motion$ &onseuently" on )uly ,2" ,9" the &ourt dispensed with the OS0Bs sub'ission of a supple'ental brief$ (, Since no new issues are raised nor super#enin5 e#ents transpired" ?e scrutini7e the 6rief for the !ccused-!ppellant (* and the 6rief for the Plaintiff !ppellee"(4 filed in &!-0$R$ &R-1$&$ o$ ,2,2" in resol#in5 the instant appeal$ Thus" accused-appellant raises the sa'e assi5n'ent of errors" in that; I T1% &O@RT ! 3@O 0R!V%>= %RR%D I FIDI0 T1% !&&@S%D-!PP%>>!T 0@I>T= 6%=OD R%!SO!6>% DO@6T OF VIO>!TIO OF S%&TIO 8" !RTI&>% II" R%P@6>I& !&T O$ 9(:8$ II T1% &O@RT ! 3@O 0R!V%>= %RR%D I OT 0IVI0 ?%I01T !D &R%D%&% TO !&&@S%D-!PP%>>!TBS D%F%S% OF D%I!>$(8 T$e Cou)(& Ru*nThe appeal is 'eritorious$ !ccused-appellant ar5ues that" first " the prosecution has not pro#ed his co''ission of the cri'e char5ed for the followin5 irre5ularities; .(/ the arrestin5 officers did not coordinate with the PD%!" as reuired under Sec$ : of R! 9(:8J .,/ no physical in#entory was conducted and photo5raph ta
!fter a careful and thorou5h re#iew of the records" ?e are con#inced that accused-appellant should be acuitted" for the prosecution has not pro#ed beyond reasonable doubt his co''ission of #iolation of Sec$ 8" !rt$ II of R! 9(:8$ ! buy-bust operation is Aa for' of entrap'ent" in which the #iolator is cau5ht in flagrante delicto and the police officers conductin5 the operation are not only authori7ed but duty-bound to apprehend the #iolator and to search hi' for anythin5 that 'ay ha#e been part of or used in the co''ission of the cri'e$A(: 1owe#er" where there really was no buy-bust operation conducted" it cannot be denied that the ele'ents for ille5al sale of prohibited dru5s cannot be duly pro#ed despite the presu'ption of re5ularity in the perfor'ance of official duty and the see'in5 strai5htforward testi'ony in court by the arrestin5 police officers$ !fter all" the indict'ent for ille5al sale of prohibited dru5s will not ha#e a le5 to stand on$ This is the situation in the instant case$ The courts a uo unifor'ly based their findin5s and affir'ance of accused-appellantBs 5uilt on; .(/ the strai5htforward testi'ony of the arrestin5 police officersJ .,/ their positi#e identification of accused-appellantJ .*/ no ill 'oti#e was shown for their testi'ony a5ainst accused-appellantJ .4/ the self-ser#in5 defense of denial by accused-appellantJ .8/ the see'in5 irre5ularities in the conduct of the buy-bust operation and the arrest of accused-appellant not in#alidatin5 the operationJ and .:/ the testi'onies of 6uenca'ino and >epiten not showin5 that the buy-bust operation was not conducted$ !lthou5h the trial courtBs findin5s of fact are entitled to 5reat wei5ht and will not be disturbed on appeal" this rule does not apply where facts of wei5ht and substance ha#e been o#erloo
PO, Ibasco on cross-eEa'ination testified" thus; !TT=$ >O=O>!; 6ein5 an operati#e" you are of course" trained in intelli5ence wor< PO, I6!S&O; =es" sir$ 3; =ou said you conducted sur#eillance but you cannot show any proof that there is an intelli5ence report" you ha#e no proof !; =es" sir$ There is" we were dispatched$ 3; ?here is your proof now !; ItBs in our office$ 3; =our dispatch order for the sur#eillance do you ha#e any !; I donBt ha#e it now sir but itBs in the office$ 3; =ou said that you conducted sur#eillance for one wee<" did I hear you ri5ht !; =es" sir$ EEEE 3; So" you are sayin5 you did not actually see hi' sellin5 dru5s at that ti'e durin5 the sur#eillance !; ?e saw hi'" sir$ EEEE 3; one$ =ou did not e#en coordinate this operation with the PD%! !; ?e coordinated it" sir$ 3; ?hat is your proof that you indeed coordinated !; ItBs in the office" sir$ !TT=$ >O=O>!; May I 'a
?hat docu'ents !TT=$ >O=O>!; The proof your 1onor that there was indeed a coordination and the intelli5ence report$ &O@RT; ?ill you be able to produce those docu'ents !; =es" sir$ ATitin5nan O=O>!; Mr$ ?itness" tell 'e durin5 the orientation" you will a5ree with 'e that there was no coordination 'ade to the PD%! re5ardin5 this intended buy bust operation PO( V!>%&I!; ?e ha#e coordinated at the PD%!$ 3; =ou say that but you ha#e no proof to show us that there was coordination !; ?e ha#e" sir$ 3; ?hat is your proof !; ?e ha#e files in our office for coordination$ 3; !re you sure about that !; =es" sir$ 3; ow" Mr$ ?itness" based on the infor'ation" you already planned to conduct a buy bust operation a5ainst the accused !; =es" sir$
3; 6ut you will a5ree with 'e that there was no sur#eillance a5ainst the accused !; ?e ha#e conducted a sur#eillance one wee< before the operation and we conducted sur#eillance APinaaboratory !; I cannot re'e'ber who brou5ht it sir because it was a lon5 ti'e a5o$ ,4 These docu'entsQQspecifically the dispatch order" the intelli5ence report of the alle5ed sur#eillance" and the written co''uniu fro' the PD%! for the conduct of the sur#eillance and buy-bust operationQQwere not" howe#er" presented in court$ %#idently" these docu'ents are non-eEistent" tendin5 to show that there really was no sur#eillance and" conseuently" no intelli5ence report about the sur#eillance or the a#erred written co''uniu fro' PD%! attestin5 to coordination with said a5ency$ ?orse" the prosecution ne#er bothered to eEplain why it could not present these docu'ents$ Thus" there is no basis to say that accused-appellant alle5edly sold shabu a wee< before he was arrested$ %#en puttin5 this lapse aside" the other irre5ularities raised by accused-appellant in the bacepiten tend to show that there was really no buy-bust operation conducted resultin5 in the #alid arrest of accused-appellant$ 0enerally" non-co'pliance with Secs$ ,( and : of R! 9(:8 does not 'ean that no buy-bust operation a5ainst appellant e#er too< place$ ,8 The prosecutionBs failure to sub'it in e#idence the reuired physical in#entory and photo5raph of the e#idence confiscated pursuant to Sec$ ,(" !rt$ II of R! 9(:8 will not dischar5e the accused fro' the cri'e$ on-co'pliance with said section is not fatal and will not render an accusedBs arrest ille5al or the ite's sei7edCconfiscated fro' hi' inad'issible$,: o 6uy-6ust Operation 6ut where there are other pieces of e#idence puttin5 in doubt the conduct of the buy-bust operation" these irre5ularities ta
Puttin5 in doubt the conduct of the buy-bust operation are the uncontro#erted testi'onies of 6uenca'ino and >epiten" which 5a#e credence to accused-appellantBs denial and fra'e-up theory$ The &ourt is not unaware that" in so'e instances" law enforcers resort to the practice of plantin5 e#idence to eEtract infor'ation fro' or e#en to harass ci#ilians$ ,2 This &ourt has been issuin5 cautionary warnin5s to trial courts to eEercise eEtra #i5ilance in tryin5 dru5 cases" lest an innocent person is 'ade to suffer the unusually se#ere penalties for dru5 offenses$ , The defense of fra'e-up in dru5 cases reuires stron5 and con#incin5 e#idence because of the presu'ption that the law enforce'ent a5encies acted in the re5ular perfor'ance of their official duties$,9 onetheless" such a defense 'ay be 5i#en credence when there is sufficient e#idence or proof 'aOM%; Mr$ ?itness" who as
!; 6ecause he was a pre#ious resident of 6aran5ay Manresa$ 3; =ou said you called police officer Lsic what was the topic$ Mr$ ?itness !; That Taba is already there and he already showed up and they i''ediately responded to arrest Taba$ 3; So" Ibasco i''ediately responded to your call !; =es" sir$ 3; ?hen they arri#ed in your place what happened else" if any !; I pointed to Taba so they could arrest hi'$ 3; ?here they able to arrest Taba !; o" sir$ 1e was able to escape$ 3; ?hey they were not able to arrest alias Taba what happened" neEt Mr$ ?itness ?hat happened to 0arry Dela &ru7 !; I was surprised because I saw 0arry Dela &ru7 already inside the #ehicle and I donBt
More tellin5 is the testi'ony of >epiten which" uncontro#erted" shows that there was no buy-bust operation$ 1er testi'ony corroborates the testi'ony of 6uenca'ino that police enforcers indeed responded to 6uenca'inoBs phone call but were not able to apprehend ATaba$A This destroys the buy-bust operation an5le testified to by PO, Ibasco and PO( Valencia$ Since the buy-bust operation alle5edly happened not inside the house of accused-appellant but in an open area in front of a shanty" such cannot be sustained in li5ht of what >epiten witnessed; The police'en chased but were not able to arrest ATabaAJ thereafter" the police'en went inside the house of accused-appellant" e'er5in5 later with hi' who was led to the #ehicle of the police'en$ Thus" >epiten testified; !TT=$ 6!RTO>OM%; Mrs$ ?itness" where were you on May ,9" ,*" if you could still re'e'ber &O@RT; ?hat ti'e !TT=$ 6!RTO>OM%; !t around 9; in the 'ornin5$ >%PIT%; I was at the terrace of the house we are rentin5 while sippin5 coffee$ 3; ?here is that house located !; o$ (*8 Mauban Street" 6aran5ay Manresa" 3ue7on &ity$ &O@RT; ?here is this" o#aliches !; o" your 1onor" near San Francisco Del Monte$ EEEE !TT=$ 6!RTO>OM%; ?hile drin
3; ?here !; In front of the house of 0arry$ 3; ?hen this 'aroon F stopped" what happened neEt" if any !; Taba ran" sir$ 3; ?hat happened neEt" if any !; Two .,/ 'en in blue pants and white shirt ali5hted fro' the 'aroon F and ran after Taba$ 3; ?ere they able to arrest Taba" Ms$ ?itness !; o" sir$ They were not able to catch hi'$ 3; ?hen they failed to arrest Taba" what did these two .,/ 'en do" if any !; They returned in front of the house and 0arry and I saw the' entered the house of 0arry$ EEEE 3; ?hat did they do" if any !; I donBt epiten" the &ourt cannot conclude that there was a buy-bust operation conducted by the arrestin5 police officers as they attested to and testified on$ The prosecutionBs story is li
Moreo#er" the prosecution failed to sufficiently pro#e the reuisite chain of custody of the sei7ed speci'en$ A&hain of custodyA 'eans the duly recorded authori7ed 'o#e'ents and custody of sei7ed dru5s or controlled che'icals fro' the ti'e of sei7ureCconfiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safeaboratory" and who recei#ed and aboratory had possession of the speci'en and released it for the proceedin5s before the trial court$ It is essential that the prohibited dru5 confiscated or reco#ered fro' the suspect is the #ery sa'e substance offered in court as eEhibitJ and that the identity of said dru5 be established with the sa'e unwa#erin5 eEactitude as that reuisite to 'a
E E E failure to obser#e the proper procedure also ne5ates the operation of the presu'ption of re5ularity accorded to police officers$ !s a 5eneral rule" the testi'ony of police officers who apprehended the accused is usually accorded full faith and credit because of the presu'ption that they ha#e perfor'ed their duties re5ularly$ 1owe#er" when the perfor'ance of their duties is tainted with irre5ularities" such presu'ption is effecti#ely destroyed$ ?hile the law enforcers enGoy the presu'ption of re5ularity in the perfor'ance of their duties" this presu'ption cannot pre#ail o#er the constitutional ri5ht of the accused to be presu'ed innocent and it cannot by itself constitute proof of 5uilt beyond reasonable doubt$ 4 1avvphi1
In su'" considerin5 the 'ultifarious irre5ularities and non-co'pliance with the chain of custody" ?e cannot but acuit accused-appellant on the 5round of reasonable doubt$ The law de'ands that only proof of 5uilt beyond reasonable doubt can Gustify a #erdict of 5uilt$ 4( In all cri'inal prosecutions" without re5ard to the nature of the defense which the accused 'ay raise" the burden of proof re'ains at all ti'es upon the prosecution to establish the 5uilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt$4, !s the &ourt often reiterated" it would be better to set free ten 'en who 'i5ht probably be 5uilty of the cri'e char5ed than to con#ict one innocent 'an for a cri'e he did not co''it$ 4* In fine" ?e repeat what the &ourt fittin5ly held in People #$ On5" a case si'ilarly in#ol#in5 a buy-bust operation" thus; The &onstitution 'andates that an accused shall be presu'ed innocent until the contrary is pro#en beyond reasonable doubt$ ?hile appellantBs defense en5enders suspicion that he probably perpetrated the cri'e char5ed" it is not sufficient for a con#iction that the e#idence establishes a stron5 suspicion or probability of 5uilt$ It is the burden of the prosecution to o#erco'e the presu'ption of innocence by presentin5 the uantu' of e#idence reuired$ 1avvphi1
In the case at bar" the basis of acuittal is reasonable doubt" the e#idence for the prosecution not bein5 sufficient to sustain and pro#e the 5uilt of appellants with 'oral certainty$ 6y reasonable doubt is not 'eant that which of possibility 'ay arise but it is that doubt en5endered by an in#esti5ation of the whole proof and an inability" after such an in#esti5ation" to let the 'ind rest easy upon the certainty of 5uilt$ !n acuittal based on reasonable doubt will prosper e#en thou5h the appellantsB innocence 'ay be doubted" for a cri'inal con#iction rests on the stren5th of the e#idence of the prosecution and not on the weaa &ru7 y Dela &ru7 is herebyAC/UITTE of the cri'e char5ed on basis of reasonable doubt$ !ccordin5ly" the &! Decision dated )une *" , in &!-0$R$ &R-1$&$ o$ ,2,2 is SET ASIE$ The Director of the 6ureau of &orrections is ordered to cause the i''ediate release of accused-appellant" unless he is bein5 lawfully held for another cause$ o costs$ SO ORD%R%D$ PRESITERO J. #ELASCO, JR. !ssociate )ustice ?% &O&@R;
RENATO C. CORONA &hief )ustice &hairperson TERESITA J. LEONAROE CASTRO !ssociate )ustice
MARIANO C. EL CASTILLO !ssociate )ustice
JOSE PORTUGAL PERE! !ssociate )ustice &%RTIFI&!TIO Pursuant to Section (*" !rticle VIII of the &onstitution" I certify that the conclusions in the abo#e Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assi5ned to the writer of the opinion of the &ourtBs Di#ision$ RENATO C. CORONA &hief )ustice
Foo(no(e& Rollo" pp$ ,-,$ Penned by !ssociate )ustice Myrna Di'aranan Vidal and concurred in by !ssociate )ustices )ose &atral Mendo7a .now a 'e'ber of this &ourt/ and Vicente 3$ RoEas$ (
Records" pp$ (,2-(*,$ Penned by Presidin5 )ud5e Se#erino 6$ De &astro" )r$
,
Id$ at (-,$
*
Id$ at (9$
4
Durin5 the trial" the prosecution presented as its witnesses PO, %dcel Ibasco and PO( Roderic< Valencia" while the testi'ony of Forensic &he'ist %n5r$ >eonard )abonillo was dispensed with upon stipulation by the defense$ On the other hand" the defense presented accused 0arry" Rodolfo 6uenca'ino" and Marbelita &ollado >epiten$ 8
&! rollo" p$ ((" &o''it'ent Order dated )uly 2" ,*$
:
0$R$ o$ (4*(2" May (9" ,4" 4, S&R! 42$
2
Rollo" p$ ,8" Order of &o''it'ent issued on February ,2" ,2$
&! rollo" p$ ,*" otice of !ppeal dated March (" ,2$
9
(
((
0$R$ o$ (2224:" !u5ust *(" ,2" 8*( S&R! 49$ Rollo" pp$ ,2-,9" dated !pril ,," ,9$
(,
Id$ at *$
(*
&! rollo" pp$ *2-8(" dated Septe'ber (" ,2$
(4
Id$ at 2*-8" dated )anuary ,(" ,$
(8
Id$ at *9$
People v. ateo" 0$R$ o$ (2942" )uly ," ," 8: S&R! *92" 4(2J citin5 People #$ On5" 0$R$ o$ (*2*4" )une ,(" ,4" 4*, S&R! 42" 44 and People #$ )uatan" 0$R$ o$ (4*2" !u5ust ," (99:" ,: S&R! 8*," 8*$ (:
People #$ Robles" 0$R$ o$ (22,," !pril ,4" ,9" 8: S&R! :42" :84J citin5 People #$ Pedronan" 0$R$ o$ (4::" )une (2" ,*" 44 S&R! (*" ($ (2
People #$ &abu5atan" 0$R$ o$ (2,(9" February (," ,2" 8(8 S&R! 8*2" 842J People #$ Del Mundo" 0$R$ o$ (:9(4(" Dece'ber :" ,:" 8( S&R! 884" 8:,$ (
(9
0$R$ o$ (,8,99" )anuary ,," (999" *( S&R! ::$
,
Id$ at :9$
Id$ at :9-:99J People #$ On5" supra note (:" at 48J People #$ De 0u7'an" 0$R$ o$ (8(,8" )une 9" ,4" 4*( S&R! 8(:" 8,*$ ,(
,,
Records" pp$ -9$
,*
TS" March (:" ,4" pp$ ((8-((9$
,4
TS" !u5ust *" ,4" pp$ (-(4$
,8
People v. Na!uita" 0$R$ o$ (8((" )uly ," ," 8: S&R! 4*" 442$
,:
People v. "gulay " 0$R$ o$ ((242" Septe'ber ,:" ," 8:: S&R! 82(" 898
,2
People #$ Daria" )r$" 0$R$ o$ (:(*" Septe'ber ((" ,9" 899 S&R! :" 29$
,
Sales #$ People" 0$R$ o$ (,,9:" !pril 2" ,9" 84 S&R! :" ::$
,9
Id$
*
People #$ MeGia" 0$R$ o$ (82,*" !u5ust 4" ,9" 898 S&R! *8:" *24$
Di7on #$ People" 0$R$ o$ (44,:" )une (8" ,:" 49 S&R! 89*" :(*J citin5 People #$ Fronda" 0$R$ o$ (*:," March (8" ," *, S&R! (8" (94$ *(
*,
TS" Septe'ber (," ,:" pp$ ,-4$
**
Rules of &ourt" Rule (*(" Sec$ ,.e/$
*4
TS" Septe'ber (," ,:" pp$ 4-8$
*8
TS" )anuary *" ,2" pp$ ,-:$
People #$ 0utierre7" 0$R$ o$ (29,(*" Septe'ber *" ,9" 89 S&R! 9," ((-(,J People #$ &er#antes" 0$R$ o$ ((494" March (2" ,9" 8( S&R! 2:," 222$ *:
*2
Records" p$ 42$
*
Sales #$ People" supra note ," at :-:9$
*9
&atuiran #$ People" 0$R$ o$ (28:42" May " ,9" 82 S&R! 8:2" 8$
4
0$R$ o$ (,29" !pril ,4" ,9" 8: S&R! 222" 2$
4(
People v. ateo" 0$R$ os$ (42:2-2" )uly 2" ,4" 4** S&R! :4" :8*$
People #$ &ai5at" 0$R$ o$ (*29:*" February :" ,," *2: S&R! *2" *9:J citin5 People #$ Mariano" 0$R$ o$ (*4*9" o#e'ber (2" ," *42 S&R! (9 and People #$ Tacipit" 0$R$ o$ (9(4 March " (998" ,4, S&R! ,4($ 4,
Valeroso #$ &ourt of !ppeals" 0$R$ o$ (:4(8" Septe'ber *" ,9" 89 S&R! 4(" :J citin5 People #$ Sarap" 0$R$ o$ (*,(:8" March ,:" ,*" *99 S&R! 8*" 8(,$ 4*
44
0$R$ o$ (2894 LFor'erly 0$R$ os$ (88*:(-:," February :" ," 844 S&R! (,*" (4($
