FIRST DIVISION
PEOPLE
OF THE
Appellee,
Present:
CARPIO, J., Acting Chairperson,*
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,**
- versus -
CORONA,
CARPIO MORALES,***
and
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, JJ.
LARRY LOPEZ, Promulgated:
Appellant. November 14, 2008
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO,
J.:
The Case
This
is an appeal from the
The Facts
The
prosecution charged appellant with violation of Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165 in
two Informations which read:
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 3188
That on or about 11:05 o’clock in
the morning of November 1, 2003 in Baler, Aurora and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the said accused, did then and there, unlawfully,
feloniously and willfully sell and convey unto a poseur buyer one plastic
sachet containing 0.06 gram of shabu, a prohibited
drug, for three (3) P100.00 and one (1) P200.00 marked bills without
any license or permit from the authorities.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 3189
That on or about 11:00 o’clock in the morning of November 1, 2003 in Baler, Aurora and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, did then and there, unlawfully, feloniously and willfully have in his possession and control three (3) pieces of marlboro cigarettes packs, containing 6.20 grams of marijuana leaves and fruiting tops without any permit or license from the authorities.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]
Upon
arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty.
Thereafter, trial ensued.
The
prosecution established that on P500
worth of shabu.
Appellant told them that he would deliver the shabu
in front of Ditha’s Hardware in half an hour. The members of the buy-bust team
strategically stationed themselves near the place of the transaction. At around
Appellant,
on the other hand, denied the charges and insisted that he was framed-up. Appellant claimed that at around
The
dispositive portion of the
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby renders judgment as follows:
1. Finding Larry Lopez y Parinia GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 for the
sale of 0.06 gram of shabu and hereby sentences him
to suffer the penalty of P500,000.00);
2. Finding Larry Lopez y Parinia GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 for
possession of 6.20 grams of dried marijuana leaves and hereby sentences him to
suffer the penalty of imprisonment of Fourteen (14) years and a fine of Three
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00).
The confiscated shabu and dried marijuana leaves are hereby ordered to be turned over to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Aurora, which, in turn, shall coordinate with the proper government agency for the proper disposition and destruction of the same.
SO
ORDERED.[4]
On
appeal, appellant pointed out that there were inconsistencies on the following matters: (1) existence
of a pre-arranged signal; and the (2)
recollection by PO1 Miranda of the markings on the buy-bust money. Appellant
also argued that the subsequent warrantless search
and seizure was illegal because he was never caught in flagrante
delicto selling shabu. Hence, the marijuana recovered from him was
inadmissible.
The Court of Appeals’ Ruling
In
a Decision dated
On
the warrantless search and seizure, the Court of
Appeals held that it is valid having been made after a lawful warrantless arrest, citing Section 12, Rule 126 of the
Rules of Court.[5]
Hence, this appeal.
The Issue
The
sole issue in this case is whether appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of violation of (1) Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 for the sale of 0.06 gram
of shabu; and (2) Section 11, Article II of RA 9165
for the possession of 6.20 grams of dried marijuana leaves.
The Ruling of the Court
The
appeal lacks merit.
Sections
5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165 read:
SEC.
5. P500,000.00)
to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person,
who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense,
deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any
dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the
quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such
transactions.
SEC.
11. Possession
of Dangerous Drugs. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and
a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten
million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who,
unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the following
quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof:
x x x x
(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.
The
Court sustains the finding of the lower courts that the prosecution
sufficiently established appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for
violation of Sections
5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165. The prosecution proved
that a consummated sale of shabu transpired
between the buy-bust team which included the confidential agent, on one hand,
and the appellant on the other. PO1
Rafael Duaso, PO1 Guzman, and PO1 Miranda, who were
members of the buy-bust team, testified that appellant sold shabu
to the confidential agent, who simultaneously gave the marked money to
appellant.[6] The prosecution also established that the
police officers recovered marijuana after searching appellant’s body. The
subject drugs were also proven to be methylamphetamine
hydrochloride and marijuana, as evidenced by Field Test Report No.
APPO-SOG-1101-2003-01 and the confirmatory tests subsequently conducted by
Forensic Chemical Officer, P/Insp. Divina Dizon of the Nueva Ecija Crime Laboratory, as
evidenced by her Chemistry Report No. D-298-2003.
Generally,
the factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals,
are conclusive and binding on this Court.[7] In the present case, appellant gravely failed
to show that the trial court overlooked or misapprehended any fact or
circumstance of weight and substance to warrant a deviation from this
rule.
First,
the alleged inconsistencies in the testimony of PO1 Miranda refer to trivial or
minor matters, which do not impair the essential integrity of the prosecution’s
evidence as a whole or reflect on the witness’ honesty.[8] Inconsistencies on the existence of a
pre-arranged signal and the markings on
the buy-bust money pertain to peripheral matters and do not refer to the actual
buy-bust operation itself — that crucial moment when the appellant was caught
selling shabu — which might warrant a reversal of appellant’s conviction.[9]
Further, the Court sustains the trial court in giving credence to the
testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses because the trial court is in a
better position to evaluate the witnesses’ deportment during the trial.[10] Besides, the
employment of a pre-arranged signal, or the lack of it, is not indispensable in
a buy-bust operation.[11] Also, the non-presentation of the buy-bust
money is not fatal to the successful prosecution of a drug case.[12]
Second,
appellant did not substantiate his defense of frame-up. He did not present evidence that the
prosecution witnesses had motive to falsely charge him. Neither did appellant
prove that the police officers did not perform their duties regularly.[13] As the Court of Appeals held, the frame-up
theory was a mere afterthought.
Third,
Section 12 of Rule 126 expressly provides that “[a] person lawfully arrested
may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of
the commission of an offense, without a search warrant.” In this case, the arresting officers were
justified in arresting appellant as he had just committed a crime when he sold shabu to the
confidential agent. A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment which has
repeatedly been accepted to be a valid means of arresting drug offenders.[14]
Considering the legality of appellant’s warrantless
arrest, the subsequent warrantless search resulting in the recovery of marijuana found in
appellant’s body is also valid.[15]
Considering
that appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5,
Article II of RA 9165, the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the trial court’s
imposition of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000
in Criminal Case No. 3188 for the illegal sale of shabu.
While
appellant is also guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11, Article II of
RA 9165, the Court modifies the penalty imposed in Criminal Case No. 3189 for
illegal possession of marijuana. In People
v. Mateo,[16]
the Court held that the period of imprisonment imposed on the accused should
not be a straight penalty, but should be an indeterminate penalty. Thus, the trial court erred in imposing the
straight penalty of imprisonment of fourteen (14) years.
Section
1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law[17] provides that when
the offense is punished by a law other than the Revised Penal Code, “the court
shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the
maximum fixed by law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term
prescribed by the same.”[18]
Accordingly, the penalty that should be imposed on appellant is imprisonment
ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to twenty (20)
years, as maximum. The Court affirms the P300,000
fine imposed by the trial court.
WHEREFORE,
the Court AFFIRMS the P300,000.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice
RENATO C.
CORONA CONCHITA CARPIO M
Associate
Justice Associate Justice
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Acting
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Acting
Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision
had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Acting Chief Justice
* Per Special Order No. 534.
** Designated member per Special Order No. 535.
*** Designated member per Special Order No. 535.
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-23. Penned by Associate Justice Myrna Dimaranan Vidal, with Associate Justices Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and Japar B. Dimaampao, concurring.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 11- 17. Penned by Judge Corazon D. Soluren.
[3] Rollo, p. 3.
[4] CA
rollo, p. 17.
[5] The Court of Appeals erroneously cited Section 13 of Rule 126.
[6] Rollo, pp. 10-16.
[7] People
v. Mateo, G.R. No. 179478, 28 July 2008;
Teodosio v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
124346, 8 June 2004, 431 SCRA 194; People
v. Lim, 435 Phil. 640 (2002); People v. Pacis,
434 Phil. 148 (2002). See also People v. Cabugatan, G.R. No. 172019,
[8] People v. Fernando, G.R. No.
170836,
[9] See People v. Fernando,
G.R. No. 170836,
[10] People v. Dilao, G.R. No. 170359,
[11] People v. Nicolas, G.R. No. 170234,
[12] People v.
Ambrosio, G.R.
No. 135378,
[13] People v. Nicolas, supra. See also People v. Cabugatan, supra.
[14] People v.
[15]
[16] G.R. No. 179036,
[17] AN ACT TO P
[18] People v.