THIRD
DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE
Plaintiff-appellee, - versus
- WILFREDO ENCILA Y SUNGA, Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 182419 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CHICO-NAZARIO, BRION,* and PERALTA, JJ. Promulgated: February 10, 2009 |
x - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D
E C I S I O N
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
Before Us
is an appeal from the Decision[1]
dated
On 19 September 2003, two separate
Informations were filed against accused-appellant before the RTC of Makati City
for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165, as
amended, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, for
allegedly (a) selling 0.22 gram of shabu
and (b) being in illegal possession of 2.63 grams of shabu.
The offense involved in Criminal Case
No. 03-3693 for violation of Section 5,[3]
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, was allegedly committed as follows:
That
on or about the 18th day of September 2003, in the City of Makati
Philippines and a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, not being lawfully authorized by law, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, distribute and transport zero point
twenty two (0.22) grams of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) which is a dangerous drug in
consideration of five hundred (P500.00) pesos.[4]
On
the other hand, the Information pertaining to Criminal Case No. 03-3694 for
violation of Section 11, [5] Article
II of the same law, reads:
That on or about the 18th day of September 2003, in the City of Makati Philippines and a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess any dangerous drug and without the corresponding license or prescription, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in possession two point sixty three (2.63) grams of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, which is a dangerous drug.[6]
Upon
his arraignment on
During trial, the prosecution presented four witnesses: Forensic Chemist Police Inspector (P/Insp.)
Richard Allan Mangalip, whose testimony was the subject of stipulation during
the initial trial of the case; Makati City Anti Drug Abuse Council (MADAC)
operative Ruben Potencion, the designated poseur-buyer; MADAC operative Richard
Prior, back-up operative; and Police Officer 3 (PO3) Jay Lagasca, the team
leader.
The prosecution’s version is as
follows:
Sometime in September 2003, an
informant[8]
reported to the MADAC office in Barangay
On P500.00
worth of shabu. Appellant received the marked money from Ruben
Potencion and took out one plastic sachet containing shabu from his left pocket. Ruben
Potencion examined the sachet and, upon being satisfied that the sachet
contained shabu, gave the
pre-arranged signal by throwing his lighted cigarette.
PO3 Jay Lagasca, with the assistance
of back-up MADAC operative Richard Prior, rushed in and frisked appellant. Upon orders to empty his pockets, accused-appellant
was found in possession of one piece of P500.00 bill, which was the
marked buy-bust money, and six plastic sachets with suspected shabu. PO3 Lagasca placed appellant under arrest,
informing him of the crime he committed and of his constitutional rights. Accused-appellant was asked his full name, and
he answered. Ruben Potencion marked the
plastic sachet of shabu with the
initials of accused-appellant, “WSE,” for the illegal sale; and the other
plastic sachets recovered from the latter after his arrest, “WSE-1 to “WSE-6.”
Accused-appellant was brought to the
Makati City Police Station, Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Force;
then to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory, to which all
seven sachets were sent for examination.[11] The examination yielded the following
results:
SPECIMEN SUBMITTED:
Seven (7) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet each containing white crystalline substance having the following markings and recorded net weights:
A (WSE) = 0.22 gram
B (WSE-1) = 1.30 grams
C (WSE-2) = 0.53 gram
D (WSE-3) = 0.41 gram
E (WSE-4) = 0.01 gram
F (WSE-5) = 0.25 gram
G (WSE-6) = 0.13 gram
FINDINGS:
Qualitative examination conducted on the above stated specimen gave POSITIVE result to the tests for the presence of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous [drug].[12]
The contents of the seven plastic sachets
were found positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug, as evidenced by Physical Science Report
No. D-1160-03S issued by Forensic Chemist Richard Allan B. Mangalip.
The accused’s urine sample was found
positive for THC[13]
metabolites and methylamphetamine hydrochloride, which meant he was a user of marijuana and methylamphetamine hydrochloride
or shabu, both dangerous drugs.
The prosecution also submitted, apart
from the testimonial evidence given by the three witnesses, several documentary
pieces of evidence:
(1) Makati City Police Anti-Illegal Drug Special Operation Sub Task Force PNP Aid SOTF Coordination Form dated 18 September 2003 with control number PDEA NOC 1809-03-14 indicating the details of the buy-bust operation (area, duration, vehicles, members of the buy-bust team, equipment);
(2)
Request for Laboratory Examination dated
(3) Physical Science Report No. D-1160-03S;
(4) White crystalline substance with marking “WSE”;
(5) Photocopy of the P500-Peso Bill marked C2 above the Serial Number EJO88272;
(6) Sworn Statements of MADAC Ruben Potencion and PO3 Jay Lagasca;
(7)
Spot Report dated
(8)
Final Investigation Report dated
The charges were denied by accused-appellant. The defense presented him and his alleged
daughter, and they gave their own version.
Accused-appellant testified that he
was 43 years old and worked as a contractual painter, having finished Grade III
only.
Wilfredo Encila[15]
and daughter Jocelyn Encila[16] testified
that there was no buy-bust operation on
On cross examination, however, accused-appellant
mentioned that he was with his daughter at the house of Danny when four armed
men in civilian clothes barged into the house and introduced themselves as
police officers. He and Danny were
frisked, but the police officers did not recover anything from the two of them.
Despite their strong protests, accused-appellant and Danny were handcuffed. They asked the policemen why they were being
apprehended, but they were simply ignored and forced to board a vehicle.
Jocelyn Encila ran away in fear and reported the incident to their relatives. The two men were thereafter brought to the
Accused-appellant also testified that,
of the three prosecution witnesses who testified in court, only PO3 Jay Lagasca
was among the four men who held him in the house of Danny.[17]
On
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is rendered as follows:
1.
In Criminal Case No. 03-3693, the accused
WILFREDO ENCILA y SUNGA is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
violation of Section 5, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 and is sentenced to
suffer the penalty of the (sic) life imprisonment and to pay the fine of P500,000.00;
and
2. In Criminal Case No. 03-3694, the accused WILFREDO ENCILA y SUNGA is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 11, Art. II, Republic Act No. 9165 and is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY as minimum to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY as maximum pursuant to the Indeterminate Sentence Law (R.A. No. 4103, as amended).
The accused is likewise ordered to
pay a fine of P300,000.00.
The period during which the accused was under detention shall be considered in his favor pursuant to existing rules.[19]
Aggrieved
by the decision, accused-appellant filed a Notice of Appeal, informing the trial
court that he was appealing the same to the Court of Appeals.[20] He thereafter filed his appellant’s brief on
In
a Decision dated
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
Appeal is hereby DENIED and the questioned Decision dated
Accused-appellant
then filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court of Appeals on
Presented before this Court, via Notice of Appeal, is
accused-appellant’s lone assignment of error:
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE PROSECUTION’S FAILURE TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
The
core issue for resolution is whether or not error attended the trial court’s
findings, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, that accused-appellant is guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act
No. 9165.
In praying for his acquittal,
accused-appellant denies the charges and claims that the prosecution’s evidence
failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. According to the defense, the trial court
relied heavily on the deficiency or weakness of the defense evidence,[24]
instead of looking at the weight of the evidence presented by the prosecution. The defense argued that the trial court erred
in finding fault in every minor and inconsequential discrepancy in the
testimony of the defense witnesses -- such as discrepancies in Jocelyn Encila’s
age, the residence of accused-appellant, the number of policemen who
apprehended the accused-appellant, the tools and fixtures found at the shop of
Danny -- instead of focusing on the prosecution’s evidence, which failed to
discharge its burden of proving accused-appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable
doubt. The trial court belabored these
non-issues, instead of ascertaining whether the accused was arrested in a
legitimate entrapment operation, or in flagrante
delicto.[25]
The defense assails the credibility
of prosecution witness MADAC operative Ruben Potencion, claiming that the
following testimony showed that even he was confused as to whether six sachets
of shabu where found in accused-appellant’s
left pocket:
Q: And what did you do after the sachet of shabu was handed to you?
A: I examined it first, sir.
Q: What happened after that?
A: When I was sure that what I bought was really shabu, I gave the pre-arranged signal, sir.
x x x x
Q: What happened next after you gave the pre-arranged signal?
A: PO3 Jay Lagasca and my back-up Richard Prior rushed to us, sir.
Q: What did Richard Prior and PO3 Lagasca do after they rushed to the place where you were at that time?
A: They introduced themselves as MADAC and police operatives, sir.
Q: And what did they do after they introduced themselves as such?
A: They asked the name of the accused and PO3 Lagasca informed the accused of his constitutional rights, sir.
Q: How about Richard Prior, what else did he do?
A: He frisked the accused, sir.
Q: What did he find out if he found anything?
A: Nothing, sir.
Q: So, what happened after he failed to find anything from the accused?
A: Richard Prior ordered the accused to empty his pockets, sir.
Q: And what happened after the accused was ordered to empty his pockets?
A: The marked money was recovered and another six (6) plastic sachets were recovered from the left pocket of the accused, sir.[26]
The defense laments that while the
witness may have expertly recognized the shabu
just by looking at it, however, what is also apparent is his confusion as to
whether the six sachets of shabu were
found in the possession of the accused, further stating that accused-appellant
was not even called upon to offer evidence on his behalf.
On the other hand, the Office of the
Solicitor General (OSG), argues otherwise, maintaining that the prosecution
presented overwhelming evidence proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt of
violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.
We
sustain accused-appellant’s conviction.
The presumption of innocence accorded
the accused was overturned by the evidence presented by the prosecution.
First
of all, we reiterate the fundamental rule that findings of the trial courts,
which are factual in nature and which involve the credibility of witnesses, are
accorded respect when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts or speculative,
arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings.[27] This rule finds an even more stringent
application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals as in the
case at bar.[28]
Prosecutions
involving illegal drugs largely depend on the credibility of the police
officers who conducted the buy-bust operation.[29] In the process of converting into written form
the statements of living human beings, not only fine nuances but a world of
meaning apparent to the judge present, watching and listening, may escape the
reader of the translated words. Considering that this Court has access only to
the cold and impersonal records of the proceedings, it generally relies upon
the assessment of the trial court, which had the distinct advantage of
observing the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses during trial.[30] Hence, factual findings of the trial courts
are accorded respect, absent any showing that certain facts of weight and
substance bearing on the elements of the crime have been overlooked,
misapprehended or misapplied. We have no
reason to deviate from this rule.
Considering,
however, that what is at stake is no less than the liberty of accused-appellant,
this Court conducted a painstaking review of the entire records of the case. Contrary to
accused-appellant’s allegation, we find that the prosecution presented
overwhelming evidence to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
When
what is involved is a prosecution for illegal sale of regulated or prohibited
drugs, conviction can be had if the following elements are present: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller,
the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and
the payment therefor. What is material
is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the
presentation in court of the corpus
delicti of the crime. The delivery
of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money
consummate the buy-bust transaction between the entrapment officers and the
accused.[31] The crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs
is committed as soon as the sale transaction is consummated.
All of the foregoing elements were
present in Criminal Case No. 03-3693.
The
prosecution clearly showed that the sale of shabu
actually took place. Accused-appellant
was caught in flagrante delicto,
selling shabu through a buy-bust
operation, which is a form of entrapment employed by peace officers as an
effective way of apprehending a criminal in the act of the commission of an
offense.[32]
MADAC operative and “poseur-buyer”
Ruben Potencion categorically identified[33]
accused-appellant Wilfredo Encila y Sunga alias “Freddie” as the “seller” who
sold to him one plastic sachet of shabu,[34] and
who received the P500.00 marked bill as payment for it on
Q: Mr. Witness, if the sachet of shabu that you bought from the accused will be shown to you, will you be able to identify the same?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: I’m showing to you several pieces of plastic sachets. Will you please go over the same and identify the sachet of shabu that you bought from the accused during the operation?
Witness
This one, sir.
Pros. Bagaoisan
Why are you certain Mr. Witness that this is the same sachet of shabu that you bought from the accused?
A: Because I was the one who put the marking “WSE”, sir.
Q: Where were you when you placed this marking?
A: At the place of operation, sir.
Q: What does this marking “WSE” stand for?
A: It’s the initial of the accused – Wilfredo Sunga Encila, sir.
Pros. Bagaoisan:
x x x With respect to the six (6) other sachets which were taken by MADAC Operative Richard Prior from the possession of the accused, were you able to see them?
Witness:
Yes, sir.
Pros. Bagaoisan:
Where were you when you first saw these six (6) other sachets?
A: I was also there, sir.
Q: Please go over these sachets I presented to you earlier and identify the six (6) sachets which were taken by Richard Prior from the possession of the accused.
A: These are the six (6) sachets, sir.
Q: Why are you certain that these are the same sachets that were recovered by Richard Prior from the possession of the accused?
A: Because I was the one who placed the markings, sir.
Q: For the record, what were the markings that you placed?
Witness
WSE-1 to WSE-6, sir.
Pros. Bagaoisan:
The witness Your Honor identified Exhibits C-1 to C-6 as the sachets subject matter of possession. After you have arrested the accused, where did you bring him?
A: We brought him to the Makati City Police Station, Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Force, sir.
Q: From that office, where did you bring the accused as well as the pieces of evidence?
A: We brought the accused together with the pieces of evidence to the PNP Crime Laboratory, sir.[36]
Based on the Physical Science Report[37]
conducted by Forensic Chemist Richard Allan B. Mangalip, the substance,
weighing 0.22 gram, which was bought from accused-appellant, was examined and
determined to be methamphetamine hydrochloride. The other six sachets of shabu, weighing a total of 2.66 grams, found in accused-appellant’s pockets upon
being asked to empty his pockets after his arrest, were also examined and
tested to be methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).
The testimony of poseur-buyer Ruben
Potencion was later corroborated on material points by the other members of the
buy-bust team, particularly PO3 Jay Lagasca (team leader) and MADAC operative
Richard Prior (backup).
While this Court has ruled in People v. Cueno[38]
that the failure to present the marked money in evidence is not indispensable
for the conviction of the accused, as long as the sale can be adequately proved
in some other way by the prosecution. The
production of the marked money recovered from the possession of
accused-appellant further strengthened the testimony of the prosecution
witnesses that a buy-bust operation was conducted.
We herein quote the material portions
of the testimony of the poseur-buyer detailing accused-appellant’s arrest, to
wit:
Pros. Bagaoisan
How long did you wait for the accused?
Witness
Fifteen (15) minutes, sir.
Q: And what happened after the lapse of fifteen (15) minutes waiting period?
A: We were just there watching, observing his movements, sir.
Q: And what happened next after you watched his movements?
x x x x
Q: And after you saw the accused, what did you do next?
Witness
The informant and I approached the accused, sir.
Pros. Bagaoisan
And what happened after you approached the accused?
A: The accused and the informant talked with each other, sir.
Q: Where were you when the informant and the accused talked with each other?
A: I was there, sir.
Q: What was the topic of their conversation?
A: The informant introduced me to the accused as someone who was in need of shabu, sir.
x x x x
Pros. Bagaoisan
Q: What was your answer?
A: Tapatan mo na lang tong limang daan ko.
Q: After you said that, what did you do?
A: I then handed to him the marked money, sir.
Q: After the accused received the same, what did he do?
A: He put it inside his right pocket and he drew out from his left pocket one (1) plastic sachet and he handed the same to me, sir.
Q: What did you do after the sachet of shabu was handed to you?
A: I examined it first, sir.
Pros. Bagaoisan
What happened after that?
Witness
When I was sure that what I bought was really shabu, I gave the pre-arranged signal, sir.
Q: What was the pre-arranged signal that you gave?
A: I threw my lighted cigarette, sir.
Q: What happened next after you gave the pre-arranged signal?
A: PO3 Jay Lagasca and my backup Richard Prior rushed to us, sir.
Q: What did Richard Prior and PO3 Lagasca do after they rushed to the place where you were at that time?
A: They introduced themselves as MADAC and police operatives, sir.
Pros. Bagaoisan
And what did they do after they introduced themselves as such?
Witness
They asked the name of the accused and PO3 Lagasca informed the accused of his constitutional rights, sir.
Q: How about Richard Prior, what else did he do?
A: He frisked the accused, sir.
Q: What did he find out, if he found anything?
A: Nothing, sir.
Q: So, what happened after he failed to find anything from the accused?
A: Richard Prior ordered the accused to empty his pockets, sir.
Q: And what happened after the accused was ordered to empty his pockets?
Witness
The marked money was recovered and another six (6) plastic sachets were recovered from the left pocket of the accused, sir.
Pros. Bagaoisan
How far were you from Richard Prior and the accused when Prior was able to recover the buy-bust money and six (6) other plastic sachets?
A: We were near each other, sir.[39]
On
the other hand, for an accused to be convicted of illegal possession of
prohibited or regulated drugs, the following elements must concur: (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 possesses the said drug.[40]
With
respect to the charge of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section
11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, all of these elements were present and
duly proven in Criminal Case No. 3694. These
are: (1) accused was found to be in possession of 2.63 grams of shabu, a dangerous drug; (2) his identity
as the person found in possession of the dangerous drug was established; and
(3) the person found to be in possession was not authorized to posses the
dangerous drug. The prosecution has established that the arresting officers
were able to retrieve six more plastic sachets of shabu in accused-appellant’s possession when he was directed to
empty his pockets upon being arrested in
flagrante delicto in the buy-bust operation.
Material
points in the testimony of MADAC operative Richard Prior’s testimony are herein
quoted:
PROSECUTOR
From that distance of ten to fifteen meters away, what did you observe or notice in the place where the transaction was going on?
WITNESS
I saw Ruben Potencion and the suspect talking with each other together with the informant.
x x x x
WITNESS
I saw MADAC Ruben Potencion [hand] the money to the accused.
x x x x
WITNESS
The accused received the money and in turn, he gave something to Ruben Potencion.
x x x x
WITNESS
I saw Ruben Potencion looking at the item that was handed to him.
PROSECUTOR
What happened after that?
WITNESS
Ruben Potencion gave the pre-arranged signal.
PROSECUTOR
What was the pre-arranged signal that was given by MADAC Ruben Potencion?
WTINESS
By throwing a lighted cigarette, sir.
x x x x
PROSECUTOR
After the pre-arranged signal was given, what did you do?
WITNESS
We proceeded to the place where Ruben Potencion and the accused were at that time to arrest Wilfredo.
x x x x
PROSECUTOR
What happened after you proceeded to the place where the transaction took place?
WITNESS
PO3 Jay Lagasca introduced himself as operative of the DEU and we ordered the accused to empty his pocket.
PROSECUTOR
What happened after you ordered the accused to empty his pocket?
WITNESS
I recovered the buy-bust money and six pieces of plastic sachets containing suspected shabu, sir.
PROSECUTOR
What happened after the recovery of the buy-bust money and six more sachets from the possession of the accused?
WITNESS
I gave the marked money to PO3 Lagasca and I gave the plastic sachets to Ruben Potencion.
PROSECUTOR
Why did you give the plastic sachets you recovered to MADAC Ruben Potencion?
WITNESS
For markings, sir.
x x x x
PROSECUTOR
How about the six sachets that you were able to recover from the possession of the accused, will you be able to identify the same?
WITNESS
Yes, sir.
x x x x
PROSECUTOR
Now, Mr. Witness, who brought the items to the crime laboratory for laboratory examination and the accused for drug testing?
WITNESS
Me, sir.[41]
Accused-appellant raised as his
defense the seemingly confusing statements made by MADAC operative Richard
Prior in open court as to the retrieval of the six additional plastic sachets
of shabu found in his possession. The
alleged confusion and incredibility are more imaginary than real. Taken as a whole, the testimony of MADAC operative
Richard Prior clearly showed that when accused-appellant was searched and
directed to empty his pockets, they found six more plastic sachets of shabu in his possession.
On
another point, the rigid testimonies of the witnesses for the defense leave
this Court with no other alternative but to discredit the evidence for being
incredible. Accused-appellant’s defense was anchored on his assertions of denial
and alibi. The defense claims that at
the time the alleged buy-bust operation took place, accused-appellant was with
his 17-year-old daughter Jocelyn at the repair shop of a certain Danny. This defense seemed more like an afterthought
considering that, on his direct examination, this corroborating detail that his
daughter was with him at that time was not even mentioned by accused-appellant.
It was only on cross-examination that
this detail was revealed. He also
testified that four armed men entered the house of Danny. Jocelyn, on the other hand, said there were
three armed persons. Accused-appellant
and Jocelyn could not give the surname of Danny despite the fact that the
accused had known him for more than a year. The defense also provided no explanation as to
why this certain Danny was not presented as defense witness, considering what
would have been the weight of his corroborating testimony.
Accused-appellant’s defense of denial
and alibi deserves scant consideration when presented vis-a-vis the positive identification by poseur-buyer Ruben
Potencion and back-up Richard Prior, who enjoy in their favor the presumption
of regularity in the performance of their duties. The defense of denial, like alibi, are viewed
by the Court with disfavor, for it can just as easily be concocted and is a
common and standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the
Dangerous Drugs Act. Bare denials cannot prevail over the direct and positive
testimony of the witness pointing to accused as the perpetrator of the offense[42]
and cannot overcome the presumption that the police officers performed their
duties regularly.[43]
Much
weight is to be given to the testimony of the police operatives, who are
presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner. Accused-appellant has not imputed any
improper motive on the part of the arresting officers nor filed a case against
them in court. He also admitted that he
had never met or encountered any of the police officers involved in the
buy-bust operation prior to his arrest. He
had no prior altercation or misunderstanding with the arresting officers as to
doubt the reasons for his arrest.
The
defense did not adduce any evidence that could have shown that the policemen
deviated from the regular performance of their duty and that could have overcome
this presumption. Neither did the
defense interpose any evidence to show that said police officers were not
performing their duty properly when the buy-bust operation was conducted. When
the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation have no motive to
falsely testify against the accused, the courts shall uphold the presumption
that they have performed their duties regularly.[44] And
unless there is clear and convincing evidence to the contrary suggesting ill
motive on the part of the police officers or deviation from the regular
performance of their duties, their testimonies with respect to the operation
deserve full faith and credit.[45]
The presumption in favor of the
prosecution witnesses, who are all police officers, taken together with the
overwhelming evidence presented by the prosecution against the accused, should
therefore stand.
Drug-pushing,
as a crime, has been condemned as “an especially vicious crime,”[46] which
is “one of the most pernicious evils that has ever crept into our society.”[47] We find that:
Indeed nothing is more depraved than for anyone to be a merchant of death by selling prohibited drugs, an act which, as this Court said in one case, “often breeds other crimes. It is not what we might call a ‘contained’ crime whose consequences are limited to that crime alone, like swindling and bigamy. Court and police records show that a significant number of murders, rapes, and similar offenses have been committed by persons under the influence of dangerous drugs, or while they are ‘high.’ While spreading such drugs, the drug-pusher is also abetting, through his greed and irresponsibility, the commission of other crimes.”[48]
With
respect to the penalties imposed in Criminal Case No. 03-3693 for violation of
Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the trial court, as affirmed by
the Court of Appeals, was correct in imposing the penalty of life imprisonment
and a fine of P500,000. Under
Republic Act No. 9165, the unauthorized
sale of shabu carries with it 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). Pursuant
to the enactment of Republic Act No. 9346 entitled, “An Act Prohibiting the
Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines,” only life imprisonment and
fine, instead of death, 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 or all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and
purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.
On
the penalty imposed in Criminal Case no. 03-3694 for violation of Section 11,
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the penalty of imprisonment of 12 years
and 1 day to 20 years and a fine ranging from P300,000.00 to P400,000.00
are to be imposed, if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5)
grams of shabu. Following the provisions of Republic Act No.
4103, otherwise known as the “Indeterminate Sentence Law,” the indeterminate
penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to
fourteen (14) years and one (1) day as maximum and a fine of P300,000.00
imposed by the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are proper.
WHEREFORE, in
view of the foregoing, the Court of Appeals Decision dated 11 October 2007 in
CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02146 affirming the Decision promulgated on 21 February
2006 by the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 64, in Criminal Cases
No. 03-3693 and No. 03-3694, finding accused-appellant Wilfredo Encila y Sunga,
alias “Freddie,” guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 (illegal sale of regulated and
prohibited drugs) and 11 (illegal possession of regulated and prohibited drugs)
of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and imposing upon him the
penalties of (a) life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 in Criminal
Case No. 03-3693; and (b) the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of twelve
(12) years and one (1) day as minimum to fourteen (14) years and one (1) day as
maximum pursuant to the Indeterminate Sentence Law (Republic Act No. 4103) and
a fine of P300,000.00 in Criminal Case No. 03-3694, is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOAssociate Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice Associate Justice
DIOSDADO M.
PERALTA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest 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’s Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s
attestation, 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’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
* Associate
Justice Arturo D. Brion was designated to sit as additional member replacing
Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura per Raffle dated
[1] Penned
by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia with Associate Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga
and Vicente Q. Roxas, concurring; rollo,
pp. 2-16.
[2] Penned
by Judge Benjamin M. Aquino;
[3] SECTION
5.
The
penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to
twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00)
to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) 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
controlled precursor and essential chemical, or shall act as a broker in such
transactions.
If
the sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution or
transportation of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential
chemical transpires within one hundred (100) meters from the school, the
maximum penalty shall be imposed in every case.
For
drug pushers who use minors or mentally incapacitated individuals as runners,
courtiers and messengers, or in any other capacity directly connected to the
dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursor and essential chemicals trade, the
maximum penalty shall be imposed in every case.
If
the victim of the offense is a minor or a mentally incapacitated individual, or
should a dangerous drug and/or a controlled precursor and essential chemical
involved in any offense herein provided be the proximate cause of death of a
victim thereof, the maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be
imposed.
The
maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed upon any
person who organizes, manages or acts as a “financier” of any of the illegal
activities prescribed in this Section.
The
penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years of
imprisonment and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00)
to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any
person, who acts as a “protector/coddler” of any violator of the provisions
under this Section. (Emphasis ours.)
[4] Records,
p. 3.
[5] Section
11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. - The
penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred
thousand persos (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
(5) 50 grams or more of metamphetamine
hydrochloride or “shabu”;
x
x x x
Otherwise,
if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties
shall be graduated as follows:
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.
[6] Records,
p. 5.
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] Request
for Laboratory Examination; id. at 89.
[12] Exhibits
B and B-3, Physical Science Report No. D-1160-03S; id. at 90.
[13] Records,
p. 97.
[14] Records,
pp. 89-100.
[15] Testified
that his daughter was 21 years old.
[16] Stated
on testimony that she was only 17 years old.
[17] TSN,
[18] CA rollo, pp. 19-26.
[19]
[20]
[21] Rollo, p. 16.
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26] Testimony
of Ruben Potencion, TSN, pp. 14-17,
[27] People v. Soriano, G.R. No. 173795,
[28] Teodosio v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
124346,
[29] People v. Nicolas, G.R. No. 170234,
[30] People v. Ahmad, 464 Phil. 848, 857 (2004).
[31] People v. Mala, 458 Phil. 180, 190 (2003).
[32] People v. Jocson, G.R. No. 169875,
[33] TSN,
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37] Records,
p. 90.
[38] 359
Phil. 151, 162 (1998).
[39] TSN,
[40] People v. Lagata, 452 Phil. 846, 853 (2003).
[42] TSN,
[43] People v. Pacis, 434 Phil. 148, 160
(2002).
[44] People v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 172116,
[45] People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 177569,
[46] People v. Nario, G.R. No. 94863,
[47] People v. Policarpio, G.R. No. L-69844,
[48] Office of the Court Administrator v. Librado,
329 Phil. 433, 436 (1996).