ASG Law

Tag: Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride

  • Ensuring Chain of Custody in Drug Cases: Protecting Rights and Upholding Justice

    In People v. Basilio, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Larry Basilio for the illegal sale of shabu, emphasizing the importance of establishing an unbroken chain of custody for seized drugs. The Court clarified that while strict adherence to procedural guidelines is ideal, the primary concern is preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item. This decision underscores that minor deviations from protocol do not automatically invalidate a conviction if the prosecution can demonstrate that the substance presented in court is the same one seized from the accused, ensuring justice is served while protecting the rights of the accused.

    When a Buy-Bust Operation Leads to a Shabu Conviction: Did Police Procedures Pass Legal Scrutiny?

    This case revolves around a buy-bust operation conducted by police officers in Manila, which led to the arrest and subsequent conviction of Larry Basilio for selling shabu, a prohibited drug. The operation was initiated based on information received by PSI Julian T. Olonan regarding a certain “Kagi” involved in the illegal drug trade. SPO1 Federico Chua acted as the poseur-buyer, purchasing a sachet of white crystalline substance from Basilio for P100. Following the arrest, the substance was marked, sent to the MPD Crime Laboratory, and later identified as methylamphetamine hydrochloride. The RTC convicted Basilio, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Basilio appealed, primarily questioning the police officers’ compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, particularly concerning the chain of custody of the seized item. The central legal question is whether the prosecution adequately proved the illegal sale of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt, despite alleged procedural lapses in handling the evidence.

    The Supreme Court, in its resolution, addressed the core elements necessary for a conviction under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The Court reiterated that the prosecution must establish the identity of the buyer and seller, the object of the sale, the consideration, and the delivery of the thing sold and its payment. Citing People v. Campos, the Court emphasized that proving the actual transaction and presenting the corpus delicti as evidence are crucial. In Basilio’s case, the prosecution presented evidence that SPO1 Chua purchased the substance from Basilio for P100, and PSI Reyes confirmed that the substance tested positive for shabu. The Court found that the prosecution had satisfactorily proven all the necessary elements of the offense.

    Building on this, the Court delved into the crucial aspect of the chain of custody, which ensures the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item. The Court noted that “to be admissible, the prosecution must show by records or testimony, the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit at least between the time it came into possession of the police officers and until it was tested in the laboratory to determine its composition up to the time it was offered in evidence,” as stated in People v. Unisa. Basilio argued that the chain of custody was broken, but the Court disagreed. The records showed that SPO1 Chua possessed the plastic sachet after the buy-bust operation, marked it with “LBH” (Basilio’s initials) at the police station, and PO3 Jimenez delivered it to the MPD Crime Laboratory, where PSI Reyes received it. PSI Reyes confirmed that the specimen bearing the “LBH” marking tested positive for shabu.

    Addressing Basilio’s argument that the marking of the seized item at the police station, rather than immediately at the place of seizure, cast doubt on its identity, the Court referenced People v. Resurreccion, clarifying that immediate marking contemplates marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team. This approach contrasts with a rigid interpretation that would require marking at the precise moment and location of the seizure. The Court emphasized that the essential point is to ensure the integrity of the evidence, regardless of minor procedural variations. The Court thus clarified that the failure to conduct an inventory of the seized item and to photograph it, as required by Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, did not affect the seized item’s evidentiary weight and admissibility.

    The Supreme Court has consistently held that what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item. The Court found that the chain of custody remained unbroken, and therefore, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item were not compromised. Consequently, the Court affirmed Basilio’s conviction and the penalties imposed upon him, with the added modification that he would not be eligible for parole, citing Section 2 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. This decision reaffirms the principle that while adherence to procedural guidelines is important, the primary objective is to ensure that the evidence presented in court is the same evidence seized from the accused, thereby upholding justice.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the prosecution adequately proved the illegal sale of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt, despite alleged procedural lapses in handling the evidence, specifically regarding the chain of custody.
    What is the significance of the chain of custody in drug cases? The chain of custody is crucial because it ensures the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item, guaranteeing that the substance presented in court is the same one seized from the accused.
    Did the police officers follow all the required procedures in this case? While the apprehending officers failed to conduct an inventory and photograph the seized item immediately, the Court found that these non-compliances did not affect the evidentiary weight and admissibility of the evidence.
    Where did the police officers mark the seized item? The police officers marked the seized item at the police station, which the Court deemed acceptable as “immediate marking” can include marking at the nearest police station.
    What was the final ruling of the Supreme Court? The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Larry Basilio for the illegal sale of shabu, with the modification that he shall not be eligible for parole.
    What is the corpus delicti in illegal drug cases? The corpus delicti refers to the actual substance that was illegally sold or possessed, which must be presented as evidence in court.
    What is the penalty for violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165? The penalty for violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 is life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00.
    Why was the accused deemed ineligible for parole? The accused was deemed ineligible for parole under Section 2 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

    The Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Basilio reinforces the balance between strict adherence to procedural rules and the ultimate goal of ensuring justice. While proper procedures are vital, the integrity of the evidence remains paramount. This ruling provides clarity on the application of R.A. No. 9165, emphasizing the importance of maintaining an unbroken chain of custody to secure convictions in drug-related cases.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: People v. Larry Basilio y Hernandez, G.R. No. 195774, February 23, 2015

  • Crossing State Lines with Contraband: Upholding Convictions in Drug Transportation Cases

    In People v. Samanoding, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the appellant for transporting illegal drugs, specifically 196.63 grams of shabu, in violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The Court emphasized that the act of carrying drugs from one place to another, even without completing the journey, constitutes transportation under the law. This ruling reinforces the strict enforcement of drug transportation laws and highlights the severe penalties for individuals caught moving illegal substances, regardless of the distance covered.

    From Airport Security to Courtroom: Can Possession Imply Transportation?

    The case began on June 18, 2005, when Camaloding Laba y Samanoding arrived at the Manila Domestic Airport, intending to board a flight to Davao City. During a routine security check, a non-uniformed personnel (NUP) noticed something suspicious about the appellant’s oversized rubber shoes. Upon inspection, three plastic sachets containing shabu were discovered concealed within the shoes. The seized drugs were later confirmed to be methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, weighing a total of 196.63 grams. Samanoding was subsequently charged with violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, which penalizes the transportation of dangerous drugs.

    The key legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the appellant’s actions constituted “transportation” of illegal drugs, as defined under RA 9165. The defense argued that since Samanoding had not yet boarded the flight, the element of transportation was not fully established. This argument hinged on a narrow interpretation of “transportation,” suggesting that movement over a significant distance was required to meet the legal definition.

    The Supreme Court, however, adopted a broader interpretation, referencing earlier precedents. The Court stated:

    “Transport” as used under the Dangerous Drugs Act is defined to mean “to carry or convey from one place to another.” The essential element of the charge is the movement of the dangerous drug from one place to another.[36]

    Building on this principle, the Court emphasized that the intent and the act of moving the drugs, even within the confines of the airport, were sufficient to constitute transportation. The Court reasoned that the appellant’s presence at the airport, combined with the concealed drugs, clearly indicated his intention to transport the illegal substances from Manila to Davao City.

    The Court also addressed the issue of the seized drugs’ quantity. Citing deliberations from the House of Representatives, the Court noted that possession of more than five (5) grams of shabu raises a presumption that the drugs are intended for distribution or trafficking, rather than personal use. This presumption further supported the conclusion that Samanoding was engaged in the illegal transportation of drugs.

    REPRESENTATIVE CUENCO.- So the presumption of the law is that, if he carries with him or her more than five grams, that is not for his personal consumption. He is out to traffic the rest of it.[37]  (Underscoring supplied)

    Regarding the chain of custody, the Court found that the prosecution had adequately established the integrity and identity of the seized drugs. Despite the arresting officers’ failure to strictly comply with Section 21 of RA 9165, which requires immediate physical inventory and photographing of the seized items, the Court held that the evidentiary value of the drugs was preserved. This determination hinged on the fact that the drugs were properly marked, examined in the laboratory, and presented in court for identification.

    Furthermore, the Court dismissed the appellant’s argument that the non-presentation of the forensic chemist, Police Senior Inspector Ebuen, was fatal to the prosecution’s case. The Court emphasized that the prosecution has the discretion to decide which witnesses to present. Additionally, the Court noted that the forensic chemist’s report enjoys a presumption of regularity in its preparation and is considered prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein, under Section 44 of Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court.

    The court further reiterated that the integrity of the corpus delicti, or the body of the crime, does not depend on the testimony of the chemical analyst. The report of a forensic chemist regarding recovered prohibited drugs is presumed to have been prepared with regularity. Thus, the absence of the forensic chemist did not invalidate the evidence presented by the prosecution.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the appellant’s actions constituted the transportation of illegal drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, even though he had not yet boarded his flight.
    What is the definition of “transport” under the Dangerous Drugs Act? Under the Dangerous Drugs Act, “transport” means to carry or convey something from one place to another. The essential element is the movement of the dangerous drug from one location to another.
    What quantity of shabu raises a presumption of intent to traffic? Possession of more than five (5) grams of shabu raises a presumption that the drugs are intended for distribution or trafficking, rather than personal use.
    What is the chain of custody rule, and how does it apply in drug cases? The chain of custody rule ensures the integrity and identity of seized drugs by requiring documentation of the handling and transfer of evidence from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court.
    What happens if law enforcement fails to strictly comply with Section 21 of RA 9165? Failure to strictly comply with Section 21 of RA 9165 does not automatically render the evidence inadmissible if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs are preserved.
    Is the testimony of a forensic chemist always required for conviction in drug cases? No, the testimony of a forensic chemist is not always required, as the forensic chemist’s report enjoys a presumption of regularity and is considered prima facie evidence.
    What is corpus delicti, and why is it important in criminal cases? Corpus delicti refers to the body of the crime, or the actual commission of the offense. Establishing corpus delicti is essential for proving that a crime has occurred.
    What was the final ruling of the Supreme Court in this case? The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, which upheld the Regional Trial Court’s conviction of Camaloding Laba y Samanoding for violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165.

    This case underscores the importance of stringent enforcement of drug transportation laws and the judiciary’s commitment to upholding convictions based on clear evidence and sound legal reasoning. The ruling in People v. Samanoding serves as a reminder that the act of transporting illegal drugs, regardless of the distance or stage of the journey, is a serious offense with severe consequences.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. LABA Y CAMALOMNG SAMANODING, APPELLANT., G.R. No. 199938, January 28, 2013

  • Conspiracy and Drug Trafficking: Upholding Conviction Based on Concerted Actions

    In People v. Yu, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Rose Yu for drug trafficking, emphasizing that conspiracy can be inferred from the coordinated actions of the accused. The court found that Yu played an active role in the sale of illegal drugs, demonstrating a shared criminal intent with her co-conspirators. This ruling underscores the principle that participation in a criminal scheme, even without direct involvement in every act, can lead to a conviction if a common design is evident.

    Driving Deeper into Danger: When Being Present Means Being Part of a Drug Deal

    Rose Yu appealed her conviction, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove her involvement in a drug deal beyond a reasonable doubt. The case originated from a buy-bust operation where Yu, along with Jorge Paloma and Ferdinand Castillo, were caught selling 3,000.8 grams of methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). Yu claimed she was merely present at the scene to pick up her brother and was mistakenly implicated in the crime. The central legal question was whether the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to prove conspiracy and Yu’s active participation in the illegal drug transaction.

    The prosecution presented evidence showing that Yu was the driver of the Honda Accord where the drugs were placed and that she communicated instructions to Castillo regarding the transaction. The Regional Trial Court found all three accused guilty, leading to Yu’s appeal based on alleged errors in the lower court’s ruling on the existence of conspiracy and the admissibility of evidence. Conspiracy requires that two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it; it is not presumed but must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Circumstantial evidence, derived from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime, can be used to infer a conspiracy, provided the evidence is strong enough to demonstrate a community of criminal design.

    The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision, emphasizing that Yu was not merely a passive spectator but an active participant. The court highlighted her role as the driver of the vehicle containing the drugs and her communication with Castillo regarding the transaction. These actions demonstrated a prior understanding and shared criminal intent among the conspirators. The court cited the principle that when accused persons’ acts aim at the same object, with each performing a part to complete the whole, it indicates a concerted and cooperative effort. In this case, Yu’s actions were crucial to the consummation of the offense.

    Regarding the integrity of the evidence, the Court found no irregularities in the handling and examination of the seized drugs. The forensic chemist’s findings confirmed that the substance was indeed methylamphetamine hydrochloride, and the defense failed to provide any convincing evidence to challenge these findings. The court also addressed concerns about the forensic chemist’s initial report, noting that any procedural irregularities were cured when his superior ratified the report with her signature. As a result, the Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution had successfully established Yu’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

    The Court considered Section 15 of the Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended, which prescribes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos for trafficking 200 grams or more of shabu. Considering there were neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua was deemed the appropriate punishment.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the prosecution provided sufficient evidence to prove Rose Yu’s involvement in a drug trafficking conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. The court had to determine if her actions demonstrated a shared criminal intent with her co-conspirators.
    What is conspiracy in the context of this case? Conspiracy, in this context, means that two or more persons came to an agreement to commit the crime of drug trafficking and decided to carry it out. The court inferred the conspiracy from the coordinated actions and shared intent of the accused.
    What evidence did the prosecution present against Rose Yu? The prosecution presented evidence that Rose Yu was the driver of the car containing the drugs and that she communicated instructions regarding the transaction. This, along with other circumstantial evidence, was used to establish her participation in the conspiracy.
    What was Rose Yu’s defense? Rose Yu claimed that she was merely at the scene to pick up her brother and was mistakenly implicated in the crime. She argued that there was no evidence to directly link her to the drug deal.
    How did the court address the issue of evidence integrity? The court found no irregularities in the handling and examination of the seized drugs. The forensic chemist’s findings were deemed credible, and the defense failed to provide any convincing evidence to challenge them.
    What is the penalty for drug trafficking in this case? The penalty prescribed by Section 15 of the Dangerous Drugs Act for trafficking 200 grams or more of shabu is reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos. The court imposed the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua.
    What is the significance of this case? This case reinforces the principle that participation in a criminal scheme, even without direct involvement in every act, can lead to a conviction if a common design is evident. It emphasizes the importance of circumstantial evidence in proving conspiracy.
    Can presence at the scene of a crime lead to a conviction? Mere presence is generally not enough for a conviction, but in this case, Rose Yu’s presence was coupled with actions and communications that indicated her active participation and shared intent. The court considered her role as more than just a bystander.

    This case highlights the crucial role of evidence and the implications of circumstantial evidence in proving conspiracy. It underscores that the active involvement in the events surrounding a crime can result in a conviction, regardless of whether one directly handles the illicit goods or money.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ROSE YU Y FLORES, G.R. No. 155030, May 18, 2004

  • Entrapment vs. Instigation: Ensuring Due Process in Drug Sale Arrests

    In People v. Lee, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Butch Bucao Lee for selling 490.60 grams of shabu, a regulated drug. The Court distinguished between entrapment (a valid law enforcement technique) and instigation (an unlawful inducement to commit a crime). The ruling underscores that when law enforcement officers merely present an opportunity for a crime to occur, without coercing or inducing the suspect to commit it, the suspect’s actions are not excused. This decision reinforces the principle that individuals found with illegal drugs, even if approached by law enforcement, can be held accountable if they willingly engage in illegal activity.

    From Dunkin’ Donuts to Handcuffs: Was It Entrapment or Legitimate Drug Bust?

    Butch Bucao Lee was convicted of selling almost half a kilo of shabu after a buy-bust operation. The defense argued that Lee was a victim of instigation, claiming he was merely following instructions from a former employer and unaware of the package’s contents. This raises a critical question: when does a police operation cross the line from legitimate entrapment to unlawful instigation, thereby violating an individual’s rights?

    The prosecution presented evidence that a confidential informant tipped off the police about Lee’s drug operation. Based on this information, the police formed a team to conduct a buy-bust operation. PO2 Tyrone Torrano, acting as the poseur-buyer, met with Lee at a 7-11 convenience store. After showing Lee the boodle money, Lee left and returned with a package containing shabu. Upon receiving the drugs, PO2 Torrano signaled to his team, who then arrested Lee. The seized substance was later confirmed to be methylamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu.

    Lee’s defense centered around his claim that he was simply delivering a package for his former employer, Richard Lim, and had no knowledge of its contents. He testified that Lim instructed him to deliver a white plastic bag to a couple in a pink car. After making the delivery, Lee was apprehended by police officers. Lee’s wife corroborated his story, stating that she saw Lim talking to a police official after her husband’s arrest. This narrative aimed to portray Lee as an unwitting participant, manipulated into committing a crime he was not predisposed to commit.

    The Supreme Court distinguished between entrapment and instigation, crucial concepts in drug cases. Entrapment occurs when law enforcement officers create an opportunity for an individual already predisposed to commit a crime to carry out their intentions. In contrast, instigation involves inducing someone, who is not otherwise inclined to commit a crime, to engage in illegal activity. The Court emphasized that entrapment is a valid law enforcement technique, while instigation is not.

    “[I]n entrapment, the entrapper resorts to subterfuge or deception to induce the suspect to commit the crime. The suspect already harbors the intention to commit the crime and the entrapper merely provides the opportunity to commit it. The suspect is simply caught in flagrante delicto. On the other hand, in instigation, the police officers or their agents incite, induce, instigate or lure an otherwise innocent person into committing a crime and thereby arrest him.”

    The Court found that the police officers in Lee’s case did not induce him to sell drugs. Instead, they acted on information that he was already engaged in drug dealing and merely provided him with an opportunity to complete a transaction. The prosecution successfully proved that Lee willingly sold the shabu to PO2 Torrano. This established that Lee was not an innocent party being coerced into committing a crime. The prior information received from the informant, while not independently verified, contributed to the context of the buy-bust operation.

    The Court gives significant weight to the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility. Unless the trial court overlooked crucial details, its findings on witness testimonies are generally upheld. In this case, the Court saw no reason to question the trial court’s assessment of the prosecution witnesses’ credibility. PO2 Torrano’s testimony was deemed credible, and Lee failed to demonstrate any ill motive on the part of the police officers. In the absence of any indication that the officers had a reason to falsely accuse Lee, the Court presumed that their actions were performed in the regular course of their duties.

    Lee’s defense of denial and his claim that he was unaware of the contents of the package were deemed self-serving and uncorroborated. His explanation lacked credibility, especially when weighed against the evidence presented by the prosecution. The prosecution had successfully established the elements of the crime, including the actual sale of shabu and the presentation of the corpus delicti, or the body of the crime, in court.

    The Court also highlighted the importance of proper handling and identification of the seized drugs. PO2 Torrano and Forensic Chemist Maria Luisa David testified regarding the chain of custody of the drugs, ensuring their integrity and admissibility as evidence. David confirmed that the substance sold by Lee was indeed methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated drug. The quantity of the drug, 490.60 grams, warranted the penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine of five hundred thousand pesos, as prescribed by Republic Act No. 6425, as amended.

    The Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Lee serves as a reminder of the distinction between entrapment and instigation. It emphasizes that individuals cannot escape criminal liability simply because they were presented with an opportunity to commit a crime by law enforcement officers. The key factor is whether the individual was already predisposed to commit the crime, or whether they were unlawfully induced to do so by the authorities. This ruling underscores the importance of carefully scrutinizing police operations to ensure that they do not violate an individual’s constitutional rights.

    FAQs

    What is the main difference between entrapment and instigation? Entrapment involves providing an opportunity to commit a crime to someone already predisposed to it, while instigation involves inducing an otherwise innocent person to commit a crime. Entrapment is legal, while instigation is not.
    What was the evidence against Butch Bucao Lee? The evidence included the testimony of PO2 Tyrone Torrano, who acted as the poseur-buyer, and the forensic analysis confirming that the substance sold by Lee was shabu. The seized drugs were presented as evidence in court.
    What was Lee’s defense in this case? Lee claimed he was merely delivering a package for his former employer and was unaware of its contents. He argued that he was a victim of instigation, not entrapment.
    How did the Court assess the credibility of the witnesses? The Court gave significant weight to the trial court’s assessment, finding no reason to doubt the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. Lee failed to provide any evidence of ill motive on the part of the police officers.
    What is the legal definition of shabu? Shabu is the street name for methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated drug under Republic Act No. 6425, as amended. Its sale and possession are illegal under Philippine law.
    What was the penalty imposed on Lee? Lee was sentenced to reclusion perpetua and a fine of five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00). The penalty was based on the quantity of shabu involved, which was 490.60 grams.
    What does “corpus delicti” mean in the context of this case? Corpus delicti refers to the body of the crime, which in this case includes the shabu that was sold. The prosecution must present the corpus delicti as evidence to prove the crime occurred.
    Why was Lee not considered a victim of instigation? The Court found that the police did not induce Lee to commit a crime he was not already predisposed to commit. They merely provided him with an opportunity to sell drugs based on prior information received.

    The People v. Lee case illustrates the delicate balance between effective law enforcement and the protection of individual rights. Understanding the distinction between entrapment and instigation is essential for ensuring that police operations remain within legal and constitutional boundaries. This case serves as a reminder that while law enforcement agencies have a duty to combat crime, they must do so without unlawfully inducing individuals to commit offenses they would not otherwise commit.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: People v. Lee, G.R. No. 140919, March 20, 2001