THIRD
DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE
Plaintiff-appellee, - versus
- ELLY NAELGA, Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 171018 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Chairperson, CHICO-NAZARIO, VELASCO,
JR., PERALTA, and ABAD,* JJ. Promulgated: September 11, 2009 |
x - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D
E C I S I O N
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
For Review
under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court is the Decision[1]
dated 30 November 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 00304 entitled
People of the Philippines v. Elly Naelga,
affirming the Decision[2]
rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Rosales, Pangasinan, Branch 53,
in Criminal Case No. 4649-R,
finding Elly Naelga guilty of the illegal sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride,
more popularly known as shabu.
By virtue
of a Criminal Complaint, accused-appellant Elly Naelga y Bongay (accused-appellant)
was indicted before the RTC of Rosales, Pangasinan, Branch 53, for violation of
Sections 5[3]
and 11(3),[4]
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, the accusatory portion of which reads:
That on or about 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon of July 15, 2003, in Poblacion, Municipality of Rosales, Province of Pangasinan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, control and custody the following, to wit: one (1) piece of small transparent plastic containing “Shabu” weighing more or less 0.4 grams which he sold to a poseur-buyer designated by the police, and without having the necessary permit or license to possess the same.
Contrary to Article II, Sec. 5 and Sec. 11(3) of R.A. 9165.[5]
Upon
arraignment on
A
pre-trial conference was held on P100 bill with Serial No. GW877766 recovered from
accused-appellant; (c) confiscation receipt; (d) Chemistry Report; and (e)
sachet of shabu handed by
accused-appellant to PO2 Sembran. Thereafter,
trial on the merits ensued.
The
prosecution supported its version of the events through documentary evidence
and the testimonies of its two witnesses from the Rosales Police Station in
Rosales, Pangasinan, namely: PO2 Noe Sembran and PO1 Rosauro Valdez.
PO2
Noe Sembran testified that upon receiving information from a civilian asset
that the accused Elly Naelga was peddling illegal drugs at the public market of
Rosales, Pangasinan, Police Chief Inspector Policarpio Cayabyab, Jr. hatched a
plan to conduct a buy-bust operation to apprehend the accused. PO2 Sembran was tasked to act as poseur-buyer,
with PO1 Danilo Asis, Senior Police Officer (SPO) 1 Jesus Caspillo, and PO1
Rosauro Valdez as backup operatives. The
money used for the buy-bust operation was provided by the Rosales Treasurer’s
Office and affixed thereto were his signature and that of the municipal treasurer
of Rosales.
In
his testimony, PO2 Sembran narrated that on P500.00) worth of
shabu. Accused-appellant told PO2 Sembran to give him
the money and committed to return with the shabu.
PO2 Sembran gave appellant four One
Hundred Pesos (P400.00) in marked bills. Upon receiving the money, accused-appellant
left. PO2 Sembran went back to the police station to plan the arrest of
accused-appellant.
Police
Chief Inspector Policarpio C. Cayabyab, Jr. instructed PO2 Sembran to act as a
poseur-buyer and the other members of the team as backup. PO2 Sembran and his fellow police officers
returned to the public market almost an hour later. They waited for accused-appellant until he
finally arrived, alighting from a tricycle. PO2 Sembran followed him in an alley. There were people sleeping on bamboo tables in
the alley, and PO2 Sembran expressed apprehension at being noticed. Accused-appellant reassured him that they
would not be disturbed and immediately asked for the balance of One Hundred
Pesos (P100.00). PO2 Sembran gave
accused-appellant the marked money. Thereupon,
accused-appellant took out a sachet containing white granules and handed it to
PO2 Sembran, who then revealed that he was a policeman. Accused-appellant tried to run, but PO2 Sembran
held on to the former’s belt. They
struggled and fell to the pavement. PO1 Valdez came to help PO2 Sembran arrest
accused-appellant. PO2 Sembran was able
to recover the One-Hundred-Peso (P100.00) bill from accused-appellant,
who had used the Four Hundred Pesos (P400.00) he earlier received to buy
shabu. Accused-appellant was taken into custody, and
PO2 Sembran executed an affidavit of arrest. The plastic sachet containing 0.04 gram of
white crystalline substance purchased from accused-appellant for P500.00
was marked “EN” and taken to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Regional
Crime Laboratory Office in Camp Florendo, San Fernando, La Union, for
laboratory examination.[7] The four marked One-Hundred-Peso bills earlier
given to accused-appellant were no longer with him, but the last P100.00
marked bill later paid to him was recovered.
PO1
Rosauro Valdez corroborated PO2 Sembran’s testimony, narrating how he acted as
backup in connection with the buy-bust operation that led to the arrest of
accused-appellant.
The
parties agreed to dispense with the testimony of the Chemist, Police Inspector
Emelda Besarra Roderos, who conducted the laboratory examination of the subject
drug, considering that the defense admitted the existence, authenticity and due
execution of Chemistry Report Number D-260-2003-U dated 16 July 2003, showing that
the laboratory examination of the drug confiscated from accused-appellant
yielded a positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. [8]
For
the defense, accused-appellant took the witness stand.
Accused-appellant denied the
accusations against him. He testified
that he was employed by a Muslim named Khadi to sell compact discs (CDs) in a
stall located inside the public market of Rosales, Pangasinan. PO2 Sembran, who
introduced himself as a security guard, had previously been buying CDs from
him. One Saturday, the exact date of
which he could not recall, PO2 Sembran came at around P5.00.
On Tuesday of the following week or on P400.00, which was placed beside him. He took the money, because it might get lost. At around
After
hearing, the trial court rendered judgment on the merits. Finding that the prosecution had proven
accused-appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the RTC promulgated its Decision
on P500,000.00, disposing as follows:
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby finds
the accused Elly Naelga guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal
sale of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or “shabu” as charged, defined and
penalized under Article II, Section 5 of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165.
Accordingly, he is sentenced to suffer life imprisonment; to pay a fine of Five
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00); and, to pay the costs of suit.[9]
Accused-appellant appealed the
decision of the RTC to the Court of Appeals. On
[T]here is no rigid or textbook method of conducting buy-bust operations. The choice of effective ways to apprehend drug dealers is within the ambit of the police authority – police officers have the expertise to determine which specific approaches are necessary to enforce their entrapment operations. The court’s duty in these cases is to ensure that the rights of the accused have not been violated during buy-bust operations.
The failure of the police authorities to comply strictly with the Dangerous Drugs Board’s Resolution on the chain of custody of the seized shabu and its preservation, by itself, is not fatal to the prosecution’s case. What is essential or necessary is that after the subject shabu was seized, the same was duly identified, marked or preserved, and duly submitted to the crime laboratory for examination. x x x.
x x x x
x x x We always adhere to the well-entrenched doctrine in our jurisdiction that the findings of facts of the trial court, its calibration of the collective testimonies of the witnesses, its assessment of the probative weight of the evidence of the parties as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded by the appellate court high respect. In the absence of any showing that a judge’s factual findings were reached arbitrarily or without sufficient basis, these findings are to be received with great respect by the Supreme Court, and indeed are binding upon it.
Prescinding therefrom, We hold that
the court a quo had sufficiently and
clearly established both the factual and legal basis that led to the verdict of
conviction of accused-appellant Naelga. The Court a quo’s findings and pronouncement that the police officers who
conducted the buy-bust operation against accused-appellant Naelga, did so
pursuant to their lawful exercise of police functions should gain respect from
Us. This is so because the defense miserably failed to produce any contrary
evidence that would show even how remotely it was, that police officers Sembran
and
Via a
Notice of Appeal,[11] accused-appellant
elevated the case to this Court, which thereafter resolved to require the
parties to simultaneously file their respective supplemental briefs, if they so
desired, within 30 days from notice.[12] Both the prosecution and the defense opted to
adopt their respective supplemental briefs filed before the Court of Appeals
for purposes of expediency.[13]
In
its brief, the defense raises the following issues for resolution by this
Court:
I.
THE
II.
THE
We
sustain accused-appellant’s conviction.
Accused-appellant
denies the charges against him and attacks the credibility of the prosecution
witnesses.
The core issue for resolution is the
issue of the credibility of the witnesses.
Accused-appellant questions the trial
court’s reliance on the credibility of the two prosecution witnesses in
convicting him on several grounds. First,
material inconsistencies and gross contradictions in the testimonies of the
police officers destroyed their credibility. Second, accused-appellant alleges that the
police officers failed to observe the proper guidelines in securing the chain
of custody of the prohibited drugs; this alleged failure to follow proper
procedure raises doubts as to whether the specimen examined by the forensic
chemist and presented in court was indeed the one retrieved from
accused-appellant. Thus, there can be no
presumption of regularity.
On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General is for
sustaining accused-appellant’s conviction, arguing that the alleged inconsistencies
are minor and inconsequential and, in fact, do not negate the occurrence of the
buy-bust operation and accused-appellant’s involvement.
The instant controversy involves no
less than the liberty of accused-appellant. The presumption of innocence of an accused in
a criminal case is a basic constitutional principle, fleshed out by procedural
rules that place on the prosecution the burden of proving that the accused is
guilty of the offense charged by proof beyond reasonable doubt. This being an appeal of a criminal case,
opening the entire case up for review, we have carefully reviewed and evaluated
the records and the decisions of the RTC and the Court of Appeals and find no
reason to deviate from their rulings.
At the outset, it should be pointed
out that prosecutions involving illegal drugs largely depend on the credibility
of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation. 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.[14] This Court will not interfere with the trial
court’s assessment of the credibility of witnesses except when there appears on
record some fact or circumstance of weight and influence which the trial court
has overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted.[15] This rule is consistent with the reality that
the trial court is in a better position to decide the question, having heard
the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying
during the trial.[16] Thus, factual findings of the trial court, its
calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses, and its conclusions anchored
on its findings are accorded by the appellate court high respect, if not
conclusive effect, more so when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, as in this case.
A successful prosecution for the
illegal sale of dangerous/prohibited drugs must establish the following
elements:
(1) identities of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and
(2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[17]
As correctly found by the trial
court, accused-appellant was caught in a buy-bust operation. He was caught in flagrante delicto selling a dangerous
drug, methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu,
to PO2 Noe Sembran on 15 July 2003 at the public market of Rosales, Pangasinan,
established not only by the clear, straightforward, and convincing testimony of
poseur-buyer PO2 Noe Sembran and corroborated by PO1 Rosauro Valdez, but also by
accused-appellant’s testimony.
Accused-appellant himself confirmed
and admitted to the occurrence of said transaction. Following his testimony, he admitted to taking
the P400.00 left by PO2 Sembran for the purchase of shabu, thereafter going to his alleged source in Urdaneta City, and
then returning with the shabu to the
Rosales Public Market, and handing the sachet over to PO2 Sembran. The foregoing were not only undisputed but
were, in fact, admitted by accused-appellant himself in his testimony. Thus, there is no denying that the said
transaction indeed took place.
Desperate to get himself absolved
from culpability, accused-appellant submits in the alternative that the facts
as presented by the prosecution reveal that the law enforcers, specifically PO2
Sembran, instigated him to sell shabu.
Accused-appellant claims that it was PO2
Sembran who approached and asked him to buy shabu,
leaving the money even if he said he did not know anybody selling shabu.
We find no instigation in this case. The general rule is that it is no defense to
the perpetrator of a crime that facilities for its commission were purposely
placed in his way, or that the criminal act was done upon the “decoy
solicitation” of persons seeking to expose the criminal, or that detectives
feigning complicity in the act were present and apparently assisting in its
commission. This is particularly true in
that class of cases where the offense is of a kind habitually committed, and
the solicitation merely furnishes evidence of a course of conduct. Mere deception by the detective will not
shield defendant, if the offense was committed by him free from the influence
or the instigation of the detective.[18]
Here, the law enforcers received a
report from their confidential informant that accused-appellant was engaged in
illegal drug trade in the public market of Rosales. Poseur-buyer PO2 Sembran then pretended to be
engaged in the drug trade himself and, with the help of his fellow buy-bust
operatives, arrested accused-appellant in the act of delivering the shabu to him. In an entrapment, ways and
means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreakers
in the execution of their criminal plan. In instigation, the instigator
practically induces the would-be defendant into the commission of the offense,
and himself becomes a co-principal. Entrapment is no bar to prosecution and
conviction; in instigation, the defendant would have to be acquitted.
A buy-bust operation is a form of
entrapment, which in recent years has been accepted as a valid and effective
mode of arresting violators of the Dangerous Drugs Law. In a buy-bust operation, the idea of committing
a crime originates from the offender, without anybody inducing or prodding him
to commit the offense.[19] In the case at bar, the buy-bust operation was
formed by the police officers precisely to test the veracity of the tip and in
order to apprehend the perpetrator.
While accused-appellant claims that
it was PO2 Sembran who approached and asked him to buy shabu for him, the same cannot be considered as an act of
instigation, but an act of “feigned solicitation.” Instigation is resorted to for purposes of
entrapment, based on the tip received from the police informant that
accused-appellant was peddling illegal drugs in the public market of Rosales.
In fact, it was accused-appellant who
suggested to PO2 Sembran to use shabu; and, despite accused-appellant’s statement
that he did not know anybody selling shabu,
he still took the money from PO2 Sembran and directly went to Urdaneta,
where he claimed to have bought the illegal drug. Then he returned to the Rosales public market
and gave the drug to PO2 Sembran.
The records of the case disclose that
PO2 Noe Sembran, the designated poseur-buyer in the buy-bust operation,
positively identified accused-appellant as the seller of the confiscated shabu. His testimony was corroborated by PO1 Rosauro
Valdez. The object of the corpus delicti was duly established by
the prosecution. The sachet confiscated
from accused-appellant was positively identified, marked and preserved as
evidence, and upon laboratory examination yielded positive for shabu.
Accused-appellant’s assertion that
the police operatives failed to comply with the proper procedure in the chain
of custody of the seized drugs is premised on the idea that non-compliance with the procedure in Section
21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No.
9165 creates an irregularity and overcomes the presumption of regularity
accorded police authorities in the performance of their official duties.
The argument fails.
Contrary to appellant’s claim, there
is no broken chain in the custody of the seized items, later on determined to
be shabu, from the moment of its
seizure by the entrapment team, to its delivery to the investigating officer,
to the time it was brought to the forensic chemist at the PNP Crime Laboratory
for laboratory examination. It was duly
established by documentary, testimonial, and object evidence, including the
markings on the plastic sachet containing the shabu indicating that the substance tested by the forensic chemist,
whose laboratory tests were well-documented, was the same as that taken from
accused-appellant.
Failure of the
buy-bust team to strictly comply with the provisions of said section did not
prevent the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty from applying. [20]
The procedure for the custody and
disposition of confiscated, seized and/or surrendered dangerous drugs, among
others, is provided under Section 21(1), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
Section 21(a), Article II of the
Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165, which implements
said provision, reads:
(a)
The apprehending officer/team having initial
custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and
confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of
the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or
seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media
and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall
be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof; x
x x Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under
justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not
render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.
The above provision further states
that non-compliance with the stipulated procedure, under justifiable grounds,
shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items,
for as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending officers. The evident purpose of the procedure provided
for is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or the innocence
of the accused. Its absence, by itself, is
not fatal to the prosecution’s case and will not discharge accused-appellant
from his crime. What is of utmost
importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of
the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt
or innocence of the accused. In the
instant case, the integrity of the drugs seized remained intact, and the
crystalline substance contained therein was later on determined to be positive
for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).
Before the
enactment of Republic Act No. 9165, the requirements contained in Section 21(1)
were already present, per Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 3, Series of
1979. Despite such regulation and the non-compliance
therewith by the buy-bust team, the Court still applied the presumption of
regularity, holding:
The failure of the arresting police officers to comply with said DDB Regulation No. 3, Series of 1979 is a matter strictly between the Dangerous Drugs Board and the arresting officers and is totally irrelevant to the prosecution of the criminal case for the reason that the commission of the crime of illegal sale of a prohibited drug is considered consummated once the sale or transaction is established x x x and the prosecution thereof is not undermined by the failure of the arresting officers to comply with the regulations of the Dangerous Drugs Board. [21]
Assuming arguendo that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty
will not apply due to the failure to comply with Section 21(a), the same will
not automatically lead to the exoneration of the accused. Accused-appellant’s conviction was based not
solely on said presumption, but on the documentary and real evidence; and, more
importantly, on the oral evidence of prosecution witnesses, whom we found to be
credible. One witness is sufficient to
prove the corpus delicti - that there was a consummated sale between the poseur-buyer and the
accused - there being no quantum of proof as to the number of witnesses to
prove the same. To emphasize, accused-appellant
himself verified in his testimony that the said transaction took place.
The inconsistencies pointed out by
the defense pertaining to whether or not he was already inside the public
market of Rosales at the time the operatives returned, or if the buy-bust team
saw him alighting from a tricycle, is an inconsistency immaterial to the
commission of the offense and, thus, cannot affect the overall credibility of
the prosecution witnesses.
The records of the case indicate that
after his arrest, accused-appellant was taken into police custody. After the arrest, the seized item, which had
the marking “EN” and alleged to contain shabu,
was brought to the PNP crime laboratory for examination.[22] The request for laboratory examination and
transfer of the confiscated sachet to the PNP crime laboratory was prepared by
Chief of Police Policarpio C. Cayabyab, Jr.[23] The request indicated that the seized item
was delivered by PO3 Resuello, Jr. and received by Forensic Chemist P/Insp. Emelda
Besarra Roderos,[24] the
same person who conducted laboratory tests on the substance. The transparent plastic sachet containing a white
crystalline substance was later on determined to be positive for
methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
PO2 Sembran positively identified the
plastic sachet containing shabu,
which he had bought from accused-appellant in the buy-bust operation. Thus, the identity of the shabu taken from accused-appellant had
been duly preserved and established by the prosecution. Besides, the integrity of the evidence is
presumed to be preserved, unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or
proof that the evidence has been tampered with.
The accused-appellant in this case bears the burden of making some
showing that the evidence was tampered or meddled with to overcome the
presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers and
the presumption that public officers properly discharged their duties. There is no doubt that the sachet marked “EN,”
which was submitted for laboratory examination and found to be positive for shabu, was the same one sold by
accused-appellant to the poseur-buyer PO2 Sembran during the buy-bust
operation.
Finally, accused-appellant’s claim
that he is a victim of a frame-up is viewed by this Court with disfavor,
because being a victim can easily be feigned and fabricated. There being no proof of ill motive on the
part of the police operatives to falsely accuse him of such a grave offense,
the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and the
findings of the trial court with respect to the credibility of witnesses shall
prevail over the claim of the accused-appellant.[25] While the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duty by law enforcement agents should not by itself
prevail over the presumption of innocence, for the claim of frame-up to
prosper, the defense must be able to present clear and convincing evidence to
overcome this presumption of regularity, which the defense was not able to
proffer.
Accused-appellant
was charged with the unauthorized sale and delivery of a dangerous drug in
violation of the provisions of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.
Under Section 5, Article II of Republic
Act No. 9165, the penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from
P500,000.00 to P1,000,000.00 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.
Thus, the trial court, as affirmed by
the Court of Appeals, correctly imposed the penalty of life imprisonment and a
fine of P500,000.00.
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 00304
convicting accused-appellant ELLY NAELGA of violation of Section 5, Article II
of Republic Act No. 9165, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life
imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate
Justice |
WE CONCUR:
Associate Justice
Chairperson
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice |
DIOSDADO
M. PERALTA Associate Justice |
|
|
|
ROBERTO A. ABADAssociate 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 Roberto A. Abad was designated to sit as additional member replacing
Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura per Raffle dated
[1] Penned
by Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes with Associate Justices Godardo A.
Jacinto and Arturo D. Brion (now a member of this Court), concurring; rollo, pp. 2-15.
[2] Penned
by Judge Teodorico Alfonso P. Bauzon; records, pp. 49-57.
[3] 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.
[4] 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
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.
[5] Records,
p. 1.
[6]
[7] Records,
p. 40.
[8]
[9]
[10] Rollo, pp. 1-18.
[11] Pursuant
to Section 13, Rule 124 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended
by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC.
[12] Rollo, p. 16.
[13]
[14] People v. Sy, 438 Phil. 383, 397 (2002).
[15] People v. Corpuz, 442 Phil. 405, 415 (2002).
[16] People v. Julian-Fernandez, 423 Phil.
895, 910 (2001).
[17] People v. Novilinio, G.R. No. 1770220,
[18] People v. Lua Chu and Uy Se Tieng, 56
Phil. 44, 53 (1931), quoting 16 Corpus Juris, p. 88, Sec. 57.
[19] People v. Yumang, G.R. No. 94977, 17 May
1993, 222 SCRA 119, 123; citing People v.
Ramos Jr., G.R. No. 88301, 28 October 1991, 203 SCRA 237, 242.
[20] People v. Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, 28 July 2008, 560 SCRA 430, 446; People v. Concepcion, G.R. No. 178876, 27 June 2008, 556 SCRA 421, 439; People v. Del Monte, G.R. No. 179940, 23 April 2008, 552 SCRA 627, 637.
[21] People v. De los Reyes, G.R. No. 106874,
[22] Records,
p. 11.
[23]
[24]
[25] People v. Bongalon, 425 Phil. 96, 116
(2002).