Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila

SPECIAL EIGHTH (8th) DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE CA-G.R. CR No. 37869

PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
*
LANTION, J. A. C.,
Acting Chairperson
DIAMANTE, F. N., and,
- versus - MANAHAN, C. S., JJ.

Promulgated:
LAARNI BELDA y ORDOÑEZ **
@ “ARNI”,
Accused-Appellant. SEP 16 2016

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION
DIAMANTE, F. N., J.:

This is an appeal from the Decision 1 dated January 5, 2015 of

the Imus, Cavite Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 20, in Criminal
Case No. 3913-07, the dispositive portion of which reads, thus:

“WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, this Court

finds the accused Laarni Belda y Ordonez GUILTY BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime of Violation of Section 11,
Article II of R.A. 9165 as specified in the criminal Information in
this case and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment of TWELVE YEARS (12) AND ONE (1) DAY, as
minimum, to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS AND EIGHT (8) MONTHS,

** Also spelled as “Ordonez” and “Ordone” in some pleadings in the Record.

* Vice J. J. B. Dimaampao per Office Order No. 343-16-RDC, dated September 2, 2016.
1 Record, pages 104-109.
CA-G.R. CR No. 37869
D E C I S I O N
J. DIAMANTE page 2

as maximum, of Reclusion Temporal and a fine of Php300,000.00.

SO ORDERED.”2

On June 27, 2007, Laarni Belda y Ordonez @ “Arni” (Laarni)

was charged with violation of Section 11, Article II, Republic Act No.
9165 (R.A. 9165) in an Information3 that reads:

“xxx

That on or about the 26th day of June 2007, in the

Municipality of Imus, Province of Cavite, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not
being authorized by law, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, have in her possession, control and custody of 0.09
grams (sic) of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride commonly known
as 'Shabu' a dangerous drugs, which is in Violation of Republic Act
No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002.

CONTRARY TO LAW.”4

During arraignment, Laarni pleaded not guilty 5 to the crime

charged. The version of the prosecution is as follows:

“On June 26, 2007, PO2 Florencita Mojica was assigned at

the Special Operation Group (SOG) Office at Camp Pantaleon
Garcia, Imus, Cavite. At around 12:00 o'clock, an informant
arrived at the office to report about a fruit game illegally maintained
at Barangay Pag-asa, Imus, Cavite. By virtue of the said report,
P/Supt. Leo Manaog Francisco, Chief of the SOG, immediately
dispatched PO2 Mojica together with PO3 Isagani Cantimbuhan
Tibayan, Po2 Rheonel Aspuria Causaren, Po2 Ronald Arguelles
Orozco and PO1 Rosita Coballes Langcay to verify the report and
make the necessary arrest.

As the team approaches the target house, they

immediately saw the fruit game machine with a man playing on it
while a woman was sitting at the sala. Upon seeing the
approaching police officers, the duo tried to escape. PO2 Mojica
was able to get hold of the woman, later on identified as herein
appellant while the man evaded arrest.

2 RTC's Decision, page 6; Record, page 109.

3 Record, page 1.
4 Id.
5 Id. at 36.
CA-G.R. CR No. 37869
D E C I S I O N
J. DIAMANTE page 3

Upon frisking appellant, PO2 Mojica found two (2)

transparent plastic sachets inside the right pocket of appellant's
shorts. PO2 Mojica immediately placed the markings, 'LOB1' and
'LOB2' on the seized items. After reading to appellant her rights,
the police officers brought her to the office for investigation while
PO2 Mojica turned over the seized items to police investigator,
Captain Chey-Chey Saulog. Thereat, a request for laboratory
examination of the seized items was prepared and signed by Chief
Francisco. Capt. Saulog later on brought the items to the Cavite
Provincial Crime Laboratory Office at L.T.O Compound, Brgy.
Palico, Imus, Cavite for examination. Police Inspector Oliver B.
Dechitan, Forensic Chemist, examined the content of 'LOB1' and
'LOB2' and found them positive for the presence of
methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.” 6

In refuting the foregoing, Laarni countered, thus:

“xxx

8. Accused LAARNI O. BELDA vehemently denied the

charge against her.

8.1. On June 26, 2007 at around 12:00 o'clock in the

afternoon, while she was with her common-law husband OLIVER
NAZAIRE ('Nazaire') preparing lunch in their home at Barangay
Pag-asa, around ten (10) persons, arrived at their house, kicked
their gate and entered their dwelling.

8.2. The said persons, unknown to them, shouted that they

were police officers and ordered them not to move. Shocked, the
accused was not able to do anything but sit down. Nazaire, for his
part, ran away after being startled when the police officers fired a
gun.

8.3. Without showing any arrest or search warrant the police

officers started searching their house where they found the fruit
game machine. The accused and the machine were brought to
Camp Pantaleon Garcia, Imus, Cavite. Upon arriving thereat, she
was asked who owned the fruit game machine, to which she
answered that she did not know. It was Nazaire's friend who asked
him to place the machine in their house for safekeeping. She was
subsequently charged for possession of the fruit game machine to
which she pleaded guilty. She came to know of the present charge
only after the inquest proceedings.” 7

Eventually, the court a quo issued the now-assailed Decision

6 Appellee's Brief; pages 3-4; Rollo, pages 69-70.
7 Brief For the Accused-Appellant, pages 4-5; Rollo, pages 37-38.
CA-G.R. CR No. 37869
D E C I S I O N
J. DIAMANTE page 4

and convicted Laarni for the crime charged. The RTC declared that
the present case appeared to fall under a warrantless search
incidental to a lawful arrest since at the time of Laarni's arrest, she
was committing an offense, i.e.: possession of a fruit game, an illegal
video machine—and to which she was eventually convicted for illegal
gambling. The lower court continued to state that the prosecution
was able to establish each link in the chain of custody that will show
that the sachets of shabu presented in court were the very same
items seized from Laarni. For one, upon seizure of the said
dangerous drugs from Laarni, the same were immediately marked.
For another thing, PO2 Florencita Mojica (PO2 Mojica) narrated
(during the trial) that her team brought Laarni as well as the items
seized from her to Camp Pantaleon Garcia and thereafter turned-over
the seized drugs to P/Insp. Chey Chey Saulog. The court of origin
observed too that it was P/Insp. Chey Chey Saulog who personally
delivered the illegal drugs to the crime laboratory for chemical
analysis and the same drugs were the ones which were personally
delivered by Forensic Chemist Oliver Dechitan to the court on May
26, 2008. Further, the court a quo found that the police officers, who
properly performed their duties in arresting Laarni, had no ill motives
against her.

Undeterred, Laarni brought the matter to this Court and

maintained that the RTC gravely erred in: 1) convicting her of the
crime charged despite the failure of the prosecution to establish
an unbroken chain of custody; 2) convicting her of the crime
charged despite the non-compliance with the procedural
safeguards prescribed by R.A. 9165; and, 3) disregarding her
testimony and defense of denial and giving full credence to the
uncorroborated testimony of the lone prosecution witness.8

We will resolve the foregoing issues jointly.

Laarni asserted9 that the prosecution failed to establish an

unbroken chain of custody considering that PO2 Mojica's testimony
was only limited to the fact of her receipt of the items confiscated
from her, but not with respect to the regularity of the transfer from
PO2 Mojica to the subsequent recipients thereof. She added that

8 Brief For The Accused-Appellant, pages 1-2; Rollo, pages 34-35.

9 Id. at 5-9; Id. at 38-42.
CA-G.R. CR No. 37869
D E C I S I O N
J. DIAMANTE page 5

“[b]y dispensing with the presentation of the testimonies of the other

links in the chain, the prosecution therefore failed to establish how
each received the items seized and how they kept it safe and free
from tampering, thereby failing to discharge its duty to present the
chain,”10 hence, the identity and integrity of the alleged corpus delicti
had been compromised.

We discard the foregoing.

In People v. Perondo,11 the Supreme Court ruled:

“It bears to stress that the findings of the trial courts which
are factual in nature and which involve credibility are accorded
respect when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts, or
speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be
gathered from such findings. The reason for this is that the trial
court is in a better position to decide the credibility of witnesses,
having heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and
manner of testifying during the trial. xxx.”

In the present case, Laarni failed to convince Us to exempt her

from the general rule. As everybody is presumably aware by now, in
every prosecution, the guilt of the accused has to be established
invariably by proof beyond reasonable doubt. 12 The elements of the
crime must be shown to exist and be adequately proven. For a
successful prosecution of an offense of possession of dangerous
drugs, the following essential elements must be proven: (1) the
accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be
a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and
(3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. 13
Note too that in dangerous drugs cases, the corpus delicti is the
dangerous drug itself. Thus, it is imperative that the integrity of the
seized dangerous drug be preserved. 14 Here, We find it appropriate
to reproduce the relevant testimony of PO2 Mojica, the leader of the
team, who proceeded to Barangay Pag-asa, Imus, Cavite (in order to
10 Brief For The Accused-Appellant, page 9; Rollo, page 42.
11 G.R. No. 193855, February 18, 2015, citing People v. Macatingag, G.R. No.
181037, January 19, 2009.
12 People v. De los Santos, G.R. No. 126988, September 14, 1999.
13 People v. Lagahit, G.R. No. 200877, November 12, 2014.
14 People v. Beran, G.R. No. 203028, January 15, 2014; People v. Adrid, G.R. No.
201845, March 6, 2013.
CA-G.R. CR No. 37869
D E C I S I O N
J. DIAMANTE page 6

verify the authenticity of a report about an illegal gambling therein) to

be able to have a clearer picture on the matter, thus:

“xxx

Q Now, you mentioned about this female person who

was left inside the house, whom you said was resisting, now,
what else happen, Madam Witness, when you approach this
woman?

A Noong nilapitan na po namin siya nagpupumiglas na

po siya at bilang seguridad po kinapkapan po namin siya.
May nakapa po kami na parang may laman po ang bulsa
nya, pinalabas po namin sa kanya at nakita po namin iyong
dalawang transparent plastic sachet.

Q When you said we to whom are you referring to?

A PO2 Rosita Langcay.

Q The two of you?

A Yes, ma'am.

Q You said that when you frisked her you found two
transparent plastic sachets in what portion of her body?

A Sa kanang bulsa ng short nya.

Q And you requested her to bring out the contents of her

pocket?

A Yes, ma'am.

Q Now what did you find out?

A Na iyon pong plastic sachet ay naglalaman ng

pinaghihinalaang shabu.

Q If you will be shown that item again will you be able

to identify the same?

A Yes, ma'am.

Q How, Madam Witness?

A Markings, ma'am.

Q What markings were you place in these two (2) plastic

sachets? (sic)
CA-G.R. CR No. 37869
D E C I S I O N
J. DIAMANTE page 7

A LOB1 and LOB2.

Q What does this LOB1 stands for?

A Laarni Ordonez Belda.

Q And do you know who placed markings in these

plastic sachets?

A Ako po.

Q Now I am showing to you, Madam Witness, these two

(2) plastic sachets which were marked in evidence as Exhibit
'C-1' and Exhibit 'C-2' which plastic sachets has (sic)
markings LOB1 and LOB2, are these the same items you
recovered from this female person inside the house?

A Yes, ma'am.

Q Can you point to the Honorable Court the markings

placed in these two (2) plastic sachets?

INTERPRETER:

The witness is pointing the marking in Exhibit 'C-1'.

xxx.”15

From the foregoing, it is patently clear that the prosecution was

able to establish with moral certainty all the elements of illegal
possession of shabu. Laarni's claim, inter alia, that: 1) she had just
arrived in their house that time and was preparing lunch food when
unknown persons (who later turned out to be around ten (10) police
officers) arrived, kicked their gate and entered therein and ordered
them not to move; 2) she was surprised, hence, she just sat down
unlike her common-law husband who ran away because the police
officers fired a gun; 3) immediately, without informing her anything
nor showing her any document, the police officers searched their
house, found the fruit game and brought the same and her to Camp
Pataleon Garcia, Imus, Cavite; and, 4) while there and when asked,
she denied ownership of the said fruit game because the same was
from their friend for safekeeping 16 must fail. Needless to say that We
find the testimony of PO2 Mojica to be more worthy of credit than that
of Laarni's. Emphasis should be made that the testimony of PO2

15 TSN of PO2 Mojica, dated February 1, 2012, pages 5-6.

16 TSN of Laarni dated August 27, page 5.
CA-G.R. CR No. 37869
D E C I S I O N
J. DIAMANTE page 8

Mojica who caught Laarni in flagrante delicto in possession of illegal

drugs during the conduct of a valid search are usually credited with
more weight and credence, in the absence of evidence that they have
been inspired by an improper or ill motive. 17 In the case at bench, We
find no proof of any ill motive or odious intent on the part of PO2
Mojica to impute such a serious crime upon Laarni.

This Court likewise cannot sustain Laarni's claim of alibi and

denial. We stress once more that the defense of alibi is a negative
defense which cannot be accorded evidentiary weight in the face of
positive assertions by prosecution witnesses.18 This is especially true
in the present case since Laarni failed to establish ill motive on the
part of the prosecution witness to testify against her, hence, there is
no basis to suspect the veracity of such testimonies. It is an oft-
repeated rule that positive identification, when categorical and
consistent and without any showing of ill-motive on the part of the
eyewitness testifying on the matter prevails over a denial which, if not
substantiated by clear and convincing evidence is negative and self-
serving evidence undeserving of weight in law. They cannot be given
greater evidentiary value over the testimony of credible witnesses
who testify on affirmative matters.19

In any event, We have no reason to doubt the credibility of PO2

Mojica considering that findings of the trial courts which are factual in
nature and which involve credibility are accorded respect when no
glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts, or speculative,
arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such
findings. The reason for this is that the trial court is in a better position
to decide on the credibility of witnesses, having heard their
testimonies and observed their deportment and manner of testifying
during the trial.20

In her desire for acquittal, Laarni wanted to impress upon this

Court that her conviction was misplaced because the prosecution
17 People of the Philippines v. Punzalan, et al., G.R. No. 199087, November 11,
2015.
18 People of the Philippines v. Dandanon y Iligan a.k.a. "Boning", G.R. No. 196258,
September 28, 2015.
19 People of the Philippines v. Piosang, G.R. No. 200329, June 5, 2013 citing
People v. Agcanas, G.R. No. 174476, October 11, 2011.
20 People of the Philippines v. Perondo, G.R. No. 193855, February 18, 2015 citing
People v. Macatingag, G.R. No. 181037, January 19, 2009.
CA-G.R. CR No. 37869
D E C I S I O N
J. DIAMANTE page 9

failed to establish the chain of custody of the alleged confiscated

drugs.

The foregoing is specious.

After examining the records of the present case, We find no

reason to overrule the findings of the RTC on the matter. Note should
be made that non-compliance with Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II
of R.A. 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations will not
render her arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from her
inadmissible.21 What is of utmost importance is the preservation of
the integrity and [the] evidentiary value of the seized items, as the
same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence
of the accused.22

For almost the same reason articulated above, the Supreme

Court in People of the Philippines v. Pavia y Paliza @ “Jeric”, et al. 23
recognized that the strict compliance with the requirements of Section
21 may not always be possible under field conditions; the police
operates under varied conditions, and cannot at all times attend to all
the niceties of the procedures in the handling of confiscated
evidence.

The only links necessary on the part of the prosecution to

endeavor in order to establish the conclusiveness of the chain of
custody are the following: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable,
of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending
officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the
apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by
the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for
laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of
the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the
court.24

21 People v. Del Monte, G.R. No. 179940, April 23, 2008.

22 People v. Yable, G.R. No. 200358, April 7, 2014.
23 G.R. No. 202687, January 14, 2015, citing People v. Llanita, G.R. No. 189817,
October 3, 2012 citing People v. Ara, G.R. No. 185011, December 23, 2009 and
People v. Lorena, G.R. No. 184954, January 10, 2011.
24 People v. Arriola, G.R. No. 187736, February 8, 2012.
CA-G.R. CR No. 37869
D E C I S I O N
J. DIAMANTE page 10

In the case at bench, We are convinced that the integrity of the

drugs seized from Laarni was undoubtedly preserved. The chain of
custody of the drugs subject matter of the instant case was shown not
to have been broken. We have observed that the two (2) pieces of
confiscated sachets of illegal drugs were marked by PO2 Mojica
apparently in Laarni's presence.25 Thereafter, P/Insp. Chey Chey
Saulog brought the said items in the Crime Laboratory, Imus, Cavite
for testing.26 When the prosecution presented the recovered plastic
sachets, PO2 Mojica positively identified 27 them as the ones seized
from the herein accused-appellant. The same plastic sachets were
identified by the Chemistry Report issued by Police Chief Inspector,
Forensic Chemist Oliver B. Dechitan. 28 Clearly, the identity of the
drugs recovered from Laarni had been duly preserved and
established by the prosecution. Hence, there is no doubt that the said
confiscated items submitted for laboratory examination and later on
found to be positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride were the
same ones found to be in her possession during the search and
when she was apprehended. Besides, the integrity of the evidence is
presumed to be preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill
will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with. In the
present case, Laarni bears the burden of showing that the evidence
was tampered or meddled with to overcome the presumption that
there was regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers, and
that the latter properly discharged their duties. 29 Sad to say, he failed
to produce convincing proof that the evidence submitted by the
prosecution had been tampered with. Thusly, We find that the
testimony of PO2 Mojica deserves full faith and credit.

In her bid for acquittal, Laarni further asserted that: a) the

testimonies of the other police officers who allegedly came into
contact with the seized drugs were not presented before the court;
and, b) “nothing in the testimony of the lone prosecution witness,
PO2 Mojica, did it state when, where, and how the inventory and
photographs were made and taken. Her testimony is also bereft of
facts that representatives from the media, the Department of Justice
(DOJ), and any elected official attended the conduct and signing of
the physical inventory, as well as the taking of photographs of the
seized items. The record of the case is wanting of any proof that the
25 TSN of PO2 Mojica dated February 1, 2012, pages 5-6.
26 Id. at 7.
27 Id. at 5-6.
28 Record, page 6.
29 People v. Miranda, G.R. No. 174773, October 2, 2007.
CA-G.R. CR No. 37869
D E C I S I O N
J. DIAMANTE page 11

same was complied with even substantially,”30 which created a doubt

as to the identity of the corpus delicti of the crime.

We are not impressed.

Time and again, there is nothing in R.A. No. 9165 or in its

implementing rules, which requires each and every one who came
into contact with the seized drugs to testify in court. “As long as the
chain of custody of the seized drug was clearly established to have
not been broken and the prosecution did not fail to identify properly
the drugs seized, it is not indispensable that each and every person
who came into possession of the drugs should take the witness
stand.”31 The non-presentation as witnesses of the evidence
custodian and the officer on duty is not a crucial point against the
prosecution since it has the discretion as to how to present its case
and the right to choose whom it wishes to present as witnesses. 32
The matter of presentation of witnesses by the prosecution is not for
the court to decide. The prosecution has the discretion as to how to
present its case and it has the right to choose whom it wishes to
present as witnesses.33

Besides, it did not escape Our attention the admissions made

by Laarni's counsel on the matter, as reflected in the September 17,
2012 Order of the RTC, viz.:

“In today's continuation of presentation of prosecution's

evidence, upon proposal for stipulation as to the nature of
testimony P/Insp. Chey Chey Saulog who is present in Court,
Atty. Rex Sustento admitted the following: that it was P/Insp.
Chey Chey Saulog who prepared the Spot Report dated June 26,
2007 which marked as Exh. 'E'; that it was also P/Insp. Saulog
who received the subject specimen from PO Florencia Mojica who
recovered the same from the accused; and finally, it was also
P/Insp. Saulog who delivered the subject specimen to the PNP
Crime Laboratory and said specimen was received by PO Quintos.

30 Brief For The Accused-Appellant, page 11; Rollo, page 44.

31 People v. Amansec, G.R. No. 186131, December 14, 2011, citing People v.
Hernandez, G.R. No. 184804, June 18, 2009.
32 People v. Hernandez, supra.
33 People v. Angkob, G.R. No. 191062, September 19, 2012, citing People v.
Padua, G.R. No. 174097, July 21, 2010; People v. Zeng Hua Dian, G.R. No.
145348, June 14, 2004.
CA-G.R. CR No. 37869
D E C I S I O N
J. DIAMANTE page 12

With the said stipulation, Pros. Rosa Elmina Villarin

dispensed with the testimony of P/Insp. Chey Chey Saulog.

xxx.”34

We would like to point out too that the taking of photographs of

the seized items, the participation of a representative from the DOJ,
the media or an elected official alone can be problematic. For this
reason, the last sentence of the implementing rules provides 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.”
Thus, non-compliance with the strict directive of Section 21 of R.A.
No. 9165 is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution’s case; police
procedures in the handling of confiscated evidence may still have
some lapses, as in the present case. These lapses, however, had
been recognized and explained in terms of their justifiable grounds
and the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized were
shown to have been preserved as We have earlier elaborated.

All told, We see no reason to disturb the findings of the RTC

that Laarni is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of
dangerous drugs. She was caught in possession of shabu or
methamphetamine hydrochloride which is punishable under Section
11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. Paragraph 2, No. 3 thereof,
reads:

“(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to

twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand
pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos
(P400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than
five (5) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine
hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil,
methamphetamine hydrochloride or 'shabu', or other dangerous
drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or 'ecstasy', PMA, TMA,
LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs
and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the
quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or less
than three hundred (300) grams of marijuana.”

34 Record, page 89.

CA-G.R. CR No. 37869
D E C I S I O N
J. DIAMANTE page 13

Following the provisions of Republic Act No. 4103, otherwise

known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, “xxx if the offense is
punished by any other law, the court shall sentence the accused to
an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not
exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be
less than the minimum term prescribed by the same.” 35 Thus, We
affirm the penalty imposed by the RTC since the weight of the seized
shabu is within the range stated for by law.

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The assailed

January 5, 2015 Decision of the Imus, Cavite Regional Trial Court,
Branch 20, in Criminal Case No. 3913-07, finding the herein
accused-appellant Laarni Belda y Ordoñez guilty for violation of
Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

FRANCHITO N. DIAMANTE
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

JANE AURORA C. LANTION

Associate Justice

CARMELITA SALANDANAN MANAHAN

Associate Justice

35 Section 1, R.A. No. 4103.

CA-G.R. CR No. 37869
D E C I S I O N
J. DIAMANTE page 14

C E RTI F I CATI O N

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is

hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court.

JANE AURORA C. LANTION

Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson
Special 8th Division