THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 235348. December 10, 2018.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , petitioner, vs. STANLEY MADERAZO y

ROMERO , respondent.

DECISION

PERALTA , J : p

Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari 1 under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court, assailing the Decision 2 dated April 26, 2017 and the Resolution 3 dated
October 11, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 143187, which
granted Stanley Maderazo's (Maderazo) petition for certiorari, and nulli ed and set
aside Search Warrant Nos. 09-2015 and 10-2015.
The facts are as follows:
On March 31, 2015, before the Regional Trial Court of Calapan City, Branch 40
(RTC), Police Superintendent Jaycees De Sagun Tolentino (Tolentino) led two (2)
separate applications for search warrants against Maderazo, Nestor Alea (Alea), Daren
Mabansag (Mabansag) and Lovely Joy Alcantara (Alcantara). In his search warrant
applications, Tolentino alleged that he has been informed by barangay o cials, Loida
Tapere Roco (Roco) and Rexcel Lozano Rivera (Rivera), that Maderazo, along with Alea,
Mabansag and Alcantara, is keeping an undetermined quantity of dangerous drugs,
drug paraphernalia, and rearms of unknown caliber and ammunitions inside his
residence in Barangay Lazareto, Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro.
According to Roco and Rivera, at 6 o'clock in the morning of March 31, 2015, they
learned that members of the Calapan City Police Station will be serving a warrant of
arrest against Maderazo for attempted murder. When they reached the house which
Maderazo is renting, the latter was already arrested. As barangay o cials, Roco and
Rivera decided to talk to Maderazo, who admitted to them that he is keeping inside the
subject house approximately 40 grams of illegal drugs, drug paraphernalia, and a
firearm. Tolentino allegedly verified said informations through casing and surveillance.
On March 31, 2015, after the preliminary investigation of witnesses Roco and
Rivera, under oath, Executive Judge Tomas C. Leynes (Judge Leynes) issued Search
Warrant No. 09-2015 for violation of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 and Search Warrant
No. 10-2015 for violation of R.A. No. 10591. On even date, both search warrants were
served in the subject house in Barangay Lazareto, Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro. By
virtue of the search warrants, police o cers recovered heat-sealed transparent plastic
sachets which were suspected to be containing shabu, various drug paraphernalia, a
.38 caliber revolver, live ammunitions, mobile phones, computer laptop, cash, among
others, from the premises.
Maderazo, Alea, and Mabansag were, subsequently, charged with illegal
possession of dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia, and illegal possession of
rearm respectively docketed as Criminal Case Nos. CR-15-12, 201, CR-15-12, 202, and
CR-15-12, 203. cDTACE

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com

 On July 1, 2015, Maderazo filed the Motion to Quash, arguing that Search Warrant
Nos. 09-2015 and 10-2015 were issued without probable cause; thus, all items seized
by virtue of their enforcement were inadmissible in evidence. He claimed that Tolentino
did not have personal knowledge of Maderazo's supposed possession of illegal drugs
and an unlicensed rearm, because the police o cer merely relied on Roco and Rivera's
statements. Maderazo insisted that Tolentino lied when he stated that the Calapan City
Police conducted prior surveillance and casing because the same could not have
possibly happened, considering that he was already under police custody in the
morning of March 31, 2015, and the house subject of the search was cordoned off.
Maderazo further asserted that nothing in the records show how and when
Tolentino conducted the casing and surveillance. The statements of Roco and Rivera
cannot also be given probative value, since the information that Maderazo has in his
custody illegal drugs, drug paraphernalia, and an unlicensed rearm were not derived
from their own perception but allegedly from Maderazo's own admission.
Thereafter, Maderazo requested for certi ed true copy of the transcript of
stenographic notes (TSN) of the proceedings conducted on March 31, 2015 regarding
the application for Search Warrant Nos. 09-2015 and 10-2015. Subsequently, Maderazo
manifested that instead of the TSN, he was only given copies of Roco, Rivera, and
Cueto's respective sworn statements which bear exactly the same questions and
answers, except for their personal circumstances.
On August 14, 2015, the trial court rendered its Order denying the motion to
quash. The dispositive portion of its Order reads:
ACCORDINGLY, the Omnibus Motion to Quash Search Warrant(s) and to
Suppress Evidence led by all the accused, through counsel, is hereby DENIED
for lack of merit.
Maderazo moved for reconsideration, but the same was denied in its September
21, 2015 Order. 4
Thus, before the appellate court, Maderazo led a petition for certiorari alleging
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the
trial court when it denied the motion to quash search warrants. 5
On April 26, 2017, the CA granted the petition for certiorari, and nulli ed and set
aside Search Warrant Nos. 09-2015 and 10-2015. 6 It, likewise, held that the items
allegedly seized in the house being rented by Maderazo by virtue of the said search
warrants are inadmissible in evidence against him since the access therein by the
police officers used void search warrants.
Aggrieved, petitioner raised the lone issue of whether or not the Honorable Court
of Appeals erred in ruling that Judge Leynes committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the assailed Orders dated August
14, 2015 and September 21, 2015 in Criminal Case Nos. CR-15-12-201 to 203, denying
respondent's motion to quash the subject search warrants.
Maderazo asserted that there was no probable cause for the issuance of Search
Warrant Nos. 09-2015 and 10-2015. He added that Judge Leynes did not personally
examine P/Supt. Tolentino and his witnesses through searching questions and
answers. He alleged that there was no TSN of the supposed personal examination of
the judge attached to the records of the case. He asserted that the sworn statements
of Roco, Rivera, and Cueto were not based on their personal knowledge but on the
alleged admission of Maderazo.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 The O ce of the Solicitor General (OSG), meanwhile, countered that while there
may be no actual TSNs of the proceedings, the sworn statements of witnesses Roco,
Rivera and Cueto are actual written records of the preliminary examination conducted
by Judge Leynes. It insisted that the admission of Maderazo constituted probable
cause which was determined by Judge Leynes after personally examining the
witnesses.
The petition has no merit. cCHITA

The rules pertaining to the issuance of search warrants are enshrined in Section
2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution:
Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of
whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search
warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to
be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce , and
particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be
seized. 7
The purpose of the constitutional provision against unlawful searches and
seizures is to prevent violations of private security in person and property, and unlawful
invasion of the sanctity of the home, by o cers of the law acting under legislative or
judicial sanction, and to give remedy against such usurpations when attempted. 8
Corollarily, Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 126 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure
provide for the requisites for the issuance of a search warrant, to wit:
SEC. 4. Requisites for issuing search warrant. — A search warrant
shall not issue except upon probable cause in connection with one speci c
offense to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath
or a rmation of the complainant and the witness he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized
which may be anywhere in the Philippines.
SEC. 5. Examination of complainant; record. — The judge must,
before issuing the warrant, personally examine in the form of searching
questions and answers, in writing and under oath, the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce on facts personally known to them and attach to the
record their sworn statements, together with the affidavits submitted.
To paraphrase this rule, a search warrant may be issued only if there is probable
cause in connection with a speci c offense alleged in an application based on the
personal knowledge of the applicant and his witnesses. This is the substantive
requirement for the issuance of a search warrant. Procedurally, the determination of
probable cause is a personal task of the judge before whom the application for search
warrant is led, as he has to examine the applicant and his or her witnesses in the form
of "searching questions and answers" in writing and under oath. 9
Thus, in Oebanda, et al. v. People , 1 0 the Court held that, in determining the
existence of probable cause in an application for search warrant, the mandate of the
judge is for him to conduct a full and searching examination of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce. The searching questions propounded to the applicant and
the witnesses must depend on a large extent upon the discretion of the judge.
Although there is no hard-and-fast rule as to how a judge may conduct his
examination, it is axiomatic that the said examination must be probing and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 exhaustive and not merely routinary, general, peripheral or perfunctory. He
must make his own inquiry on the intent and factual and legal justi cations
for a search warrant. The questions should not merely be repetitious of the
averments stated in the a davits/deposition of the applicant and the
witnesses.
Following the foregoing principles, the Court agrees with the CA in ruling that the
trial judge failed to conduct the probing and exhaustive inquiry as mandated by the
Constitution. A perusal of the preliminary examination taken on all the witnesses on
March 31, 2015 appeared to be coached in identical form of questions and answers.
We quote the pertinent portions, to wit:
Preliminary Examination taken of
witness Loida Tapere Roco:
Q. Maaari mo bang sabihin ang iyong tunay na pangalan at iba pang bagay
na pagkakakilanlan sa iyo?
A. Ako po ay si Loida Tapere Roco, 50 taong gulang, may asawa, barangay
konsehal ng barangay Lazareto at naninirahan sa barangay Lazareto,
Calapan, Oriental Mindoro.
Q. Bakit ka naririto ngayon sa aming tanggapan? CScaDH

A. Nais ko pong ipagbigay-alam sa inyo na noong ika-6:00 ng umaga ng 31

March 2015, ako ay nakatanggap ng impormasyon na ang miyembro ng
Calapan City Police Station na pinangungunahan ni PSupt. Jaycees DS
Tolentino na mayroon silang huhulihin sa aming barangay na may
warrant of arrest.
Q. Ano ang iyong nalaman?
A. Napag-alaman ko na ang taong huhulihin sa aming barangay ay naroon
sa bahay ni Major Roger Garcia kung saan ito nangungupahan at kung
saan ang caretaker ng naturang bahay ay itong si Sally Cueto.
xxx xxx xxx
Q. Ano pa ang iyong napag-alaman?
A. Napag-alaman ko din na ang taong huhulihin ng mga pulis na
nangungupahan sa bahay na iyon ay si Stanley Maderazo na may kasong
Attempted Murder.
Q. Ano ang sumunod na nangyari?
A. Na pagdating ko sa bahay na inuupahan ni Stanley Maderazo ay nakita ko
na siya ay hinuli na ng mga pulis ng Calapan at narinig ko din na siya ay
binabasahan ng kanyang mga karapatan tungkol sa kanyang pagkaaresto
ni Police Inspector Jude Nicolasora.
Q. Ano pa ang sumunod na nangyari?
A. Bilang kagawad ng aming barangay, ako ay lumapit kay Stanley
Maderazo at sa aking pakikipag-usap sa kanya ay umamin siya sa akin na
siya ay mayroong baril sa loob ng kanyang inuupahang bahay.
Q. Sa anong kadahilanan mo naman naisipang isalaysay ang mga bagay na
ito?
A. Ito po ay sa kadahilanang si Stanley Maderazo ay umamin sa akin na siya
ay mayroong baril doon sa bahay na kanyang inuupahan.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com

 Q. Mayroon ka pa bang nais idagdag?
A. Wala na po at kung mayroon man ay sa hukuman ko na lamang sasabihin
ang mga iyon.
Q. Ikaw ba ay tinakot, pinilit o pinangakuan ng anumang bagay upang
magbigay ng salaysay na ito?
A. Hindi po. 1 1
In comparison, the preliminary investigation conducted on witness Rexcel Lozano
Rivera on the same date contained similar line of questioning and the answers were
framed in the same manner, to wit:
Preliminary Examination taken of
witness Rexcel Lozano Rivera:
Q. Maaari mo bang sabihin ang iyong tunay na pangalan at iba pang bagay
na pagkakakilanlan sa iyo?
A. Ako po ay si Rexcel Lozano Rivera, 43 taong gulang, may asawa, barangay
konsehal ng barangay Lazareto at naninirahan sa barangay Lazareto,
Calapan, Oriental Mindoro.
Q. Bakit ka naririto ngayon sa aming tanggapan?
A. Nais ko pong ipagbigay-alam sa inyo na noong ika-6:00 ng umaga ng 31
March 2015, ako ay nakatanggap ng impormasyon na ang mga miyembro
ng Calapan City Police Station na pinangungunahan ni PSupt. Jaycees DS
Tolentino na mayroon silang huhulihin sa aming barangay na may
warrant of arrest.
aHSTID

Q. Ano ang iyong nalaman?

A. Napag-alaman ko na ang taong huhulihin sa aming barangay ay naroon
sa bahay ni Major Roger Garcia kung saan ito nangungupahan at kung
saan ang caretaker ng naturang bahay ay itong si Sally Cueto.
xxx xxx xxx
Q. Ano pa ang iyong napag-alaman?
A. Napag-alaman ko din na ang taong huhulihin ng mga pulis na
nangungupahan sa bahay na iyon ay si Stanley Maderazo na may kasong
Attempted Murder.
Q. Ano ang sumunod na nangyari?
A. Na pagdating ko sa bahay na inuupahan ni Stanley Maderazo ay nakita ko
na siya ay hinuli na ng mga pulis ng Calapan at narinig ko din na siya ay
binabasahan ng kanyang mga karapatan tungkol sa kanyang pagkaaresto
ni Police Inspector Jude Nicolasora.
Q. Ano pa ang sumunod na nangyari?
A. Bilang kagawad ng aming barangay, ako ay lumapit kay Stanley
Maderazo at sa aking pakikipag-usap sa kanya ay umamin siya sa akin na
siya ay mayroong humigit kumulang na 40 gramo ng mga iligal na droga
at mga paraphernalia na ginagamit sa iligal na droga sa loob ng kanyang
inuupahang bahay.
Q. Sa anong kadahilanan mo naman naisipang isalaysay ang mga bagay na
ito?
A. Ito po ay sa kadahilanang si Stanley Maderazo ay umamin sa aking na
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 siya ay mayroong iligal na droga at mga paraphernalia na ginagamit sa
iligal na droga doon sa bahay na kanyang inuupahan.
Q. Mayroon ka pa bang nais idagdag?
A. Wala na po at kung mayroon man ay sa hukuman ko na lamang sasabihin
ang mga iyon.
Q. Ikaw ba ay tinakot, pinilit o pinangakuan ng anumang bagay upang
magbigay ng salaysay na ito?
A. Hindi po. 1 2
Clearly, the interrogation conducted by the trial judge appeared to be merely
routinary, considering that same questions were thrown on both witnesses Roco and
Lozano. In fact, there were only three questions relating to the facts and circumstances
involving illegal drugs and alleged illegal possession of firearms; to wit:
xxx xxx xxx
Q. Ano ang sumunod na nangyari?
A. Na pagdating ko sa bahay na inuupahan ni Stanley Maderazo ay nakita ko
na siya ay hinuli na ng mga pulis ng Calapan at narinig ko din na siya ay
binabasahan ng kanyang mga karapatan tungkol sa kanyang pagkaaresto
ni Police Inspector Jude Nicolasora.
Q. Ano pa ang sumunod na nangyari?
A. Bilang kagawad ng aming barangay, ako ay lumapit kay Stanley
Maderazo at sa aking pakikipag-usap sa kanya ay umamin siya sa akin na
siya ay mayroong humigit kumulang na 40 gramo ng mga iligal na droga
at mga paraphernalia na ginagamit sa iligal na droga sa loob ng kanyang
inuupahang bahay. CDHaET

Q. Sa anong kadahilanan mo naman naisipang isalaysay ang mga

bagay na ito?
A. Ito po ay sa kadahilanang si Stanley Maderazo ay umamin sa aking na
siya ay mayroong iligal na droga at mga paraphernalia na ginagamit sa
iligal na droga doon sa bahay na kanyang inuupahan.
xxx xxx xxx 1 3
None of the above-quoted questions appeared to probe on the applicant's and
his witnesses' personal knowledge of the offense respondent allegedly committed. The
trial judge failed to propound questions as to how the applicants came to know of the
existence of the items, where they found it, or what they have seen and observed inside
the premises. There was no probing, exhaustive, and extensive questions.
In fact, it can easily be gleaned from the investigation that the applicant's and his
witnesses' knowledge of the offense that allegedly has been committed and that the
objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched
was not based on their personal knowledge but merely based on Maderazo's alleged
admission. The judge even failed to inquire as to how Roco and Lozano were able to
elicit said admission from Maderazo. Su ce it to say that the questions propounded
on the witnesses were not searching and probing. The trial judge failed to make an
independent assessment of the evidence adduced and the testimonies of the
witnesses in order to support a nding of probable cause which warranted the
issuance of a search warrant, for violation of R.A. No. 9165 and illegal possession of
firearms.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 Consequently, because the trial judge failed to conduct exhaustive probing and
searching questions, the ndings of the existence of probable cause become dubious.
To recapitulate, Tolentino, in his application for search warrant, stated therein that " he
was informed and verily believes that accused were keeping dangerous drugs and
paraphernalia in his residence, and that he has veri ed the report based on the
statements executed by Rivera and Roco." While he claimed that they also conducted
veri cation through casing and surveillance, there was no statement as to when and
how the surveillance was made. Clearly, Tolentino solely relied on the statements of
Rivera and Roco who also did not personally see the subjects of the search warrants as
they were not even inside the premises. Rivera and Roco merely relied on Maderazo's
alleged admission. The facts and circumstances which supposedly were the basis for
the nding of probable cause were not based on Tolentino's and his witnesses'
personal knowledge. Consequently, Tolentino's application and his witnesses'
testimonies, are inadequate proof to establish that there exists probable cause to issue
the assailed search warrants.
It must be emphasized anew that the core requisite before a warrant shall validly
issue is the existence of a probable cause, meaning "the existence of such facts and
circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that
an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the
offense are in the place to be searched." And when the law speaks of facts, the
reference is to facts, data or information personally known to the applicant and the
witnesses he may present. Absent the element of personal knowledge by the applicant
or his witnesses of the facts upon which the issuance of a search warrant may be
justi ed, the warrant is deemed not based on probable cause and is a nullity, its
issuance being, in legal contemplation, arbitrary. 1 4
While hearsay information or tips from con dential informants could very well
serve as basis for the issuance of a search warrant, the same is only true if such
information or tip was followed-up personally by the recipient and validated. 1 5
However, here, no such follow-up transpired. Tolentino's claim of casing and
surveillance was, in fact, unsubstantiated. Furthermore, testimony based on what is
supposedly told to a witness, as in this case, being patent hearsay and, as a rule, of no
evidentiary weight or probative value, whether objected to or not, would, alone, not
suffice under the law on the existence of probable cause. 1 6 TaCEHA

Moreover, as correctly pointed out by the CA, insofar as Search Warrant No. 10-
2015 was issued in connection with the offense of illegal possession of rearms, the
elements of the offense should be present, to wit: (1) the existence of the subject
firearm; and (2) the fact that the accused who owned or possessed it does not have the
license or permit to possess the same. Thus, the probable cause as applied to illegal
possession of rearms would, therefore, be such facts and circumstances which would
lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that a person is in possession of
a firearm and that he does not have the license or permit to possess the same.
In the instant case, neither the testimonies of the witnesses nor Tolentino's
application for the issuance of the search warrants mentioned that Maderazo had no
license to possess a rearm. No certi cation from the appropriate government agency
was presented to show that Maderazo was not licensed to possess a rearm.
Regardless of the nature of the surveillance and veri cation of the information carried
out by the police o cers, the fact remains that both the applicant Tolentino and his
witnesses did not have personal knowledge of Maderazo's lack of license to possess
rearms and ammunitions. They, likewise, failed to adduce the evidence required to
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 prove the existence of probable cause that Maderazo had no license to possess a
firearm.
I n Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines (PICOP) v. Asuncion , 1 7 we
declared as void the search warrant issued by the trial court in connection with the
offense of illegal possession of rearms, ammunitions and explosives, on the ground,
inter alia, of failure to prove the requisite probable cause. The applicant and the witness
presented for the issuance of the warrant were found to be without personal
knowledge of the lack of license to possess rearms of the management of PICOP and
its security agency. They, likewise, did not testify as to the absence of license and failed
to attach to the application a no-license certi cation from the Firearms and Explosives
O ce of the Philippine National Police. 1 8 Possession of any rearm becomes unlawful
only if the required permit or license therefore is not first obtained. 1 9 Hence, the search
and seizure warrant issued on the basis of the evidence presented is void.
As a general rule, the nding of probable cause for the issuance of a search
warrant by a trial judge is accorded respect by the reviewing courts. However, when in
issuing the search warrant, the issuing judge failed to comply with the requirements set
by the Constitution and the Rules of Court, the resulting search warrants must be struck
down as it was issued with grave abuse of discretion which is tantamount to in excess
or lack of jurisdiction.
Settled is the rule that where entry into the premises to be searched was gained
by virtue of a void search warrant, prohibited articles seized in the course of the search
are inadmissible against the accused. In ruling against the admissibility of the items
seized, the Court held that prohibited articles may be seized but only as long as the
search is valid. In this case, it was not because: (1) there was no valid search warrants;
and (2) absent such a warrant, the right thereto was not validly waived by Maderazo. In
short, the police o cers who entered petitioner's premises had no right to search the
premises and, therefore, had no right either to seize the prohibited drugs and articles
and rearms. 2 0 It is as if they entered Maderazo's house without a warrant, making
their entry therein illegal, and the items seized, inadmissible. 2 1
Finally, it must be stressed anew that no presumption of regularity may be
invoked in aid of the process when the o cer undertakes to justify an encroachment of
rights secured by the Constitution. 2 2 Considering that the search and seizure warrant
in this case was procured in violation of the Constitution and the Rules of Court, all the
items seized in Maderazo's house, being fruits of the poisonous tree, are inadmissible
for any purpose in any proceeding.
WHEREFORE , the petition is DENIED . The Decision dated April 26, 2017 and the
Resolution dated October 11, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 143187
are hereby AFFIRMED . acHTIC

SO ORDERED.
Leonen, Gesmundo, J.C. Reyes, Jr. and Hernando, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 11-29.

2. Penned by Associate Justice Pedro B. Corales, with Associate Justices Celia C. Librea-
Leagogo and Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, concurring; id. at 30-45.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com

 3. Id. at 46-47.
4. Id. at 93.
5. Id. at 94-120.

6. Supra note 2.
7. Worldwide Web Corp., et al. v. People, et al., 724 Phil. 18, 43 (2014). (Emphasis supplied)
8. Silva v. Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Negros, Oriental, Branch XXXIII, 280 Phil.
151, 155-156 (1991), citing Alvero v. Dizon, 76 Phil. 637, 646 (1946).
9. Coca-Cola Bottlers, Phils., Inc. v. Gomez, et al., 591 Phil. 642, 653-654 (2008).
10. 786 Phil. 706, 714 (2016).
11. Rollo, pp. 66-67.

12. Id. at 68-69.

13. Id. at 68-69.
14. Columbia Pictures, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 329 Phil. 875, 918 (1996).
15. See Cupcupin v. People, 440 Phil. 714 (2002).
16. Sony Music Entertainment v. Judge Espanol, 493 Phil. 507, 517-518 (2005).

17. 366 Phil. 717, 736-737 (1999).

18. Id.
19. Del Rosario v. People, 410 Phil. 642, 659 (2001), citing People v. Castillo, 382 Phil. 499, 508
(2000).
20. See Roan v. Gonzales, 230 Phil. 90 (1986).
21. Id.
22. Nala v. Judge Barroso, Jr., 455 Phil. 999, 1015 (2003).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com