THIRD DIVISION
|
People of the
Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - Loreto daria,
JR. y CRUZ,
Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 186138 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Chairperson, CHICO-NAZARIO, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, and
PERALTA, JJ. Promulgated: September 11, 2009 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
The instant appeal assails the
Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals dated 25 October 2007 in CA-G.R. CR H.C. No. 02544 which
affirmed the 14 June 2006 Decision[2] of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 267, in Criminal Cases No.
12832-D and No. 12833-D, finding accused-appellant Loreto C. Daria, Jr., a.k.a Tayap (Loreto), guilty of illegal sale
and illegal possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride more popularly known as
“shabu.”
On 1 September 2003, two separate
Informations were filed against Loreto before the RTC of Pasig 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 0.46 gram of shabu and
(b) being in illegal possession of 1.11 grams of shabu.
The offense involved in Criminal Case
No. 12832-D for violation of Section 5,[3]
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, was allegedly committed as follows:
On or about August 18, 2003, in Pasig City, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, not being lawfully
authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
sell, deliver and give away to PO1 Victor S. Bantog, Jr., a police
poseur-buyer, one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing forty-six
decigrams (0.46 gram) of white crystalline substance, which was found positive
to the test for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation
of the said law.[4]
The accusatory portion of the second
Information pertaining to Criminal Case No. 12833-D for violation of Section
11,[5]
Article II of the same law, reads:
On or about August 18, 2003, in Pasig City and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, not being lawfully
authorized to possess or otherwise use any dangerous drug, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and under his
custody and control ten (10) heat sealed transparent plastic sachets containing
the following weights, to wit:
a. five centigrams (0.05 gram)
b. twenty decigrams (0.20gram)
c. sixteen decigrams (0.16 gram)
d. thirteen decigrams (0.13 gram)
e. thirteen decigrams (0.13 gram)
f. ten decigrams (0.10 gram)
g. three centigrams (0.03 gram)
h. three centigrams (0.03 gram)
i.
ten decigrams
(0.10 gram)
j.
eighteen
decigrams (0.18)
or a total weight of one (1) gram and eleven (11)
decigrams (1.11 gram) of white crystalline substance were found positive to the
test for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of the
said law.[6]
When arraigned on
The prosecution presented the oral testimony
of its lone witness, Police Officer (PO) 1 Victor S. Bantog, Jr. (PO1 Bantog),
of the District Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Force (DAID-SOTF),
Eastern Police District,
From the foregoing evidence adduced
by the prosecution, it appears that at around P500-peso bill,
which came from Inspector Pascual, was marked by PO1 Bantog with his initials
“VSB.” At around
SPECIMEN SUBMITTED:
|
A = 0.46 gram |
E = 0.13 gram |
I = 0.03 gram |
|
B = 0.05 gram |
F = 0.13 gram |
J = 0.10 gram |
|
C = 0.20 gram |
G = 0.10 gram |
K
= 0.18 gram |
|
D = 0.16 gram |
H = 0.03 gram |
|
PURPOSE LABORATORY EXAMINATION:
To determine the presence of any dangerous drug.
FINDINGS:
Qualitative examination conducted on the above-stated
specimens gave POSITIVE result to the tests for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
CONCLUSION:
Specimens A through K contain Methamphetamine Hydrochloride,
a dangerous drug.
The defense, on the other hand, put
up the defense of denial and frame-up through the testimonies of Loreto and
Rosana de Guzman Daria (Rosana), Loretos’s sister-in-law.
According to Loreto, a market vendor,
it was on P50,000.00 in exchange for his release. Rosana was released later having been tasked
to raise and produce the said amount, while Loreto remained incarcerated. He also testified that the P500.00
buy-bust money and the sachets of shabu
came from PO1 Orig’s pocket and were only shown to him in the police station. He declared that he saw PO1 Bantog for the
first time at the police station. He further
claimed that the police officers implicated him because he and Melinda, one of
his three wives, filed a complaint against Inspector Pascual, PO1 Ramos, PO1
Orig and PO3 Bernardo for the illegal arrest, planting of evidence and robbery
in relation to Loreto’s first arrest on
Rosana testified that on P50,000 to settle the charge
against her and Loreto. She did not
return to the police station and instead went to the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI) to file a complaint against said police officers. The case did not progress since she failed to
follow it up, as she had gone abroad.
In a Joint Decision dated P500,000.00; while for illegal
possession, Criminal Case No. 12833-D, he
was sentenced to suffer imprisonment ranging from 12 years and 1 day to 14
years and to pay a fine of P300,000.00.
Loreto filed a motion for reconsideration,
which was denied by the RTC.
Dissatisfied, he elevated his
convictions to the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals, however,
affirmed his convictions.
Hence, the instant appeal.
Loreto faults the RTC and the Court
of Appeals for convicting him despite the fact that the apprehending officers failed
to follow the procedures for making a pre-operation report, coordinating with
the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), taking photographs and a physical
inventory of the confiscated items, and subjecting the accused to the mandatory
drug test provided for by Republic Act No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules and
Regulations. He implies that failure to
follow these procedures makes the apprehension irregular and unauthorized,
thereby destroying the presumption of regularity given to police authorities in the performance of
their official duties.
Loreto’s
arguments are unconvincing.
Section 86(a) of the Implementing
Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 encourages other enforcement
agencies to coordinate with the PDEA prior to anti-drug operations, to wit:
The PDEA shall be the lead agency in the enforcement
of the Act, while the PNP, the NBI and other law enforcement agencies shall
continue to conduct anti-drug operations in support of the PDEA; Provided, that
the said agencies shall, as far as practicable, coordinate with the PDEA prior
to anti-drug operations. x x x.
Section 21(a), paragraph 1, Article
II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 states:
(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.
Section 36(f) of the same statute
provides:
(f) All persons
charged before the prosecutor’s office with a criminal offense having an
imposable penalty of imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one (1)
day shall have to undergo a mandatory drug test.
This is not the first time that the
Court is confronted with this same issue. In People
v. Agulay,[18] therein
accused-appellant contended that the non-compliance
with the procedure in Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165, created an irregularity that overcame the
presumption of regularity accorded to police authorities in the performance of
their official duties. There, the Court
decreed that failure to strictly follow the procedure set forth under Section
21(1), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic
Act No. 9165, did not invalidate the seizure and custody of confiscated items
during the buy-bust operation, viz:
The dissent agreed with accused-appellant’s assertion
that the police operatives failed to comply with the proper procedure in the
custody of the seized drugs. It premised
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. This
assumption is without merit.
First, it must be made clear that in several cases[19]
decided by the Court, failure by the buy-bust team to comply with said section
did not prevent the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty from
applying.
Second, even prior to the enactment of R.A. 9165, the
requirements contained in Section 21(a) were already there per Dangerous Drugs
Board Regulation No. 3, Series of 1979.
Despite the presence of such regulation and its non-compliance by the
buy-bust team, the Court still applied such presumption.[20] We held:
“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 and the prosecution thereof is not undermined by the failure of the
arresting officers to comply with the regulations of the Dangerous Drugs Board.”
x x x x
Moreover, non-compliance with the procedure outlined
in Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of
Republic Act No. 9165, 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.[21] (Emphases supplied.)
From the foregoing disquisition, it
can easily be gleaned that non-compliance with the procedural requirements
under Republic Act No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations relative
to the custody, photographing and drug-testing of the apprehended persons, are
not serious flaws that can render void the seizures and custody of drugs in a
buy-bust operation. In addition, the
Court has already ruled that the non-presentation of the pre-operation report is
not fatal to the cause of the prosecution, because it is not indispensable in a
buy-bust operation.[22]
What determines if there was, indeed,
a sale of dangerous drugs in a buy-bust operation is proof of the concurrence
of all the elements of the offense, to wit: (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, which the prosecution has satisfactorily
established. The prosecution
satisfactorily proved the illegal sale of dangerous drugs and presented in
court the evidence of corpus delicti.[23]
In the instant case, all the elements
of the crime have been sufficiently established by the prosecution. The witness for the prosecution was able to
prove that the buy-bust operation indeed took place, and the shabu subject of the sale was brought to
and duly identified in court. The
poseur-buyer (PO1 Bantog) positively identified Loreto as the one who had sold to
him one heat-sealed, transparent plastic sachet containing forty-six decigrams
(0.46 gram) of shabu. After Loreto received the marked money and
handed to PO1 Bantog one plastic sachet of shabu,
the latter introduced himself as a police officer and right away frisked the
former. From the body search, PO1 Bantog
recovered from the possession of Loreto, specifically from the latter’s pocket,
another 10 sachets of shabu. PO1 Bantog straightforwardly narrated the
circumstances leading to the consummation of the sale of illegal drugs, the
possession of ten plastic sachets and the arrest of Loreto:
PROS. Bautista:
Q: Where
were you at around
A: I was
at the office, sir.
Q: What
happened while you were inside the office?
A: A
civilian informant came informing us that there is a rampant selling of shabu along Bolante, sir.
Q: What
was the information relayed to you by the informant other than the rampant
selling?
A: Allegedly
the supplier is one alias Tayap, sir.
Q: Was
this Tayap particularly described by this informant?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: How was
he described?
A: He has
a big built, tall person, has fair complexion.
x x x x
Q: After receiving
the information, what happened?
A: P/Insp.
Q: How
many of you were present at that time?
A: Nine
operatives, sir.
Q: And who
are these operatives? Will you name them?
A: SPO1
Bernardo, PO1 Jocelyn Samson, PO1
Q: Was there
a briefing conducted by your chief?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: What
was the briefing all about?
A: To
locate the suspect, to verify if he’s really selling shabu in that place, to make a surveillance at the place, to
monitor the place.
Q: What
else? Who acted as a poseur-buyer here?
A: I,
sir.
Q: And as
poseur-buyer, what were you supposed to do?
A: I was
given P500 peso bill, sir.
Q: What
did you do with that P500 peso bill?
A: I put
secret markings, sir.
Q: What
markings?
A: My
initials, sir?
Q: What initials?
A: VSB,
sir.
Q: What
does VSB stands for?
A: Victor
S. Bantog, sir.[24]
PO1 Bantog testified futher:
Q: What
was your specific instruction at that time?
A: I will
act as poseur buyer, sir.
Q: What
else?
A: At
x x x x
Q: When
you reached the target area, what happened?
A: Insp.
Pascual told the confidential informant to locate Tayap.
x x x x
Q: Were
you able to locate this Tayap?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: Who was
able to locate this Tayap?
A: At
first, the confidential informant, sir.
Q: Not
you?
A: Not me,
sir.
Q: So what
happened after that, after this confidential informant was able to locate
Tayap?
A: He went
back to us and told us that Tayap is there, sir.
Q: And
what did you do after that?
A: I went
along with the confidential informant.
Q: Only
two of you proceeded to the area?
A: Montefalcon acted as my back-up, sir.
x x x x
Q: What
happened when you reached the place where Tayap was located?
A: I was
introduced by the confidential informant to Tayap, sir.
Q: How
were you introduced?
A: That I
will get shabu, sir.
Q: What
was the reply of Tayap, of the accused?
A: I asked
him if he has shabu, sir.
Q: And
what was his answer?
A: He
answered, “yes.”
Q: Will
you narrate to us how this transaction took place?
A: When I
gave him the P500, he handed me the shabu,
sir.
Q: How
many?
A: One
piece, sir.
Q: And how
much is that shabu worth?
A: P500.00,
sir.
x x x x
Q: So when
you handed this P500.00 bill, the accused gave to you the one sachet?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: And
after the accused gave to you this sachet, what did you do?
A: I
introduced myself to him, sir.
Q: You
introduced yourself as police?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: And
after introducing yourself as police officers, what did you do?
A: I held
him, sir.
Q: And
then, what happened?
A: PO1
Bedo Montefalcon arrived, sir.
Q: What
did Montefalcon do?
A: We both
held the accused, sir.
Q: And
then, what happened?
A: I was
able to recover the marked money from the accused, sir.
Q: You yourself
recovered the money?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: Where
did you get this marked money?
A: From
his hand, sir.
Q: After
that, what did you do?
A: I also
recovered ten (10) pieces of small plastic sachets aside from the one I bought,
sir.
Q: Where
did you see it?
A: From
his maong pants, sir.
x x x x
Q: How did
you get that?
A: After
frisking him, sir.
x x x x
Q: And
when you frisked this accused, you were able to get how many pieces of shabu or plastic sachet?
A: Ten
(10) pieces and the one I bought from him, a total of eleven (11), sir.
Q: After
that, what did you do?
A: I put
markings on the plastic sachet,sir.
x x x x
Q: And
from these things you confiscated from the accused, how do you know the thing
subject of a buy-bust operation and the things subject of possession?
A: The one
I bought contains more, sir.
Q: And
what did you mark on the one you bought?
A: I
marked “A” the shabu I bought from
him, sir.
x x x x
Q: And
then what did you do, what happened next?
A: We
brought him to the office, but before that, I informed him of his
constitutional rights, sir.
x x x x
Q: If
shown to you these sachets of shabu confiscated
from the accused, can you identify the same?
A: Yes,
sir.
Interpreter: Witness
is going over the envelope containing the specimen confiscated from the
accused. Witness is going over the plastic sachets.
A: This is
the one, sir.[25]
Contrary
to what Loreto wants to portray, the chain of custody of the seized prohibited
drugs was shown to have not been broken. While still in the crime scene, PO1 Bantog
marked the one plastic sachet he bought and the other 10 sachets he seized from
Loreto’s possession. These plastic
sachets containing a white crystalline substance were immediately forwarded to
the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination to determine the presence of dangerous
drugs. The forensic chemist found that the white crystalline substance inside
the 11 confiscated sachets was positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug. Besides, Loreto did not question the custody
and disposition of the drugs that were taken from him in the proceedings before
the RTC. In fact, he stipulated the
existence of the specimens, the existence of the arresting officer’s request
for laboratory examination, and the fact that the same were examined by Forensic
Chemist Annalee Forro. The examination
yielded a positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu.[26]
There can be no doubt that the drug bought and seized from Loreto
was the same one examined in the crime laboratory. Plainly, the prosecution established the
crucial link in the chain of custody of the sold and seized sachets of shabu, from the time they were first bought
and seized from Loreto, until they were brought for examination. We, thus, find the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the drugs coming from Loreto to have not been compromised.
Loreto also insists that his defense
of having been framed up is supported by clear and convincing evidence, since
the involved police officers had a sufficient motive to get back at him for
filing a case against said officers. Furthermore,
he questions the credibility of the lone testimony of the witness for the prosecution,
since said witness could not remember from which pocket of the accused he got
the ten plastic sachets, and what quantity of shabu the witness bought from the accused.
Simply, Loreto wants this Court to evaluate
the credibility of the prosecution witnesses vis-a-vis the defense witness. It has often been said, however, that the credibility
of witnesses is a matter best examined by, and left to, the trial courts. [27]
The time-tested doctrine is that the matter of assigning values to declarations
on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge
who, unlike appellate magistrates, can weigh such testimony in light of the
declarant’s demeanor, conduct and position to discriminate between truth and
falsehood.[28] Thus, appellate courts will not disturb the
credence, or lack of it, accorded by the trial court to the testimonies of
witnesses. [29] This is especially true when the trial court’s
findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, because said findings are
generally conclusive and binding upon this Court, unless it be manifestly shown
that the trial court had overlooked or disregarded arbitrarily the facts and
circumstances of significance in the case.[30]
However, in view of the fact that at
stake here is no less than the liberty of accused-appellant, this Court
thoroughly examined the entire records of this case, scrutinized the
testimonies and the pieces of documentary evidence tendered by both parties,
and observed them at close range. Regrettably
for Loreto, this Court failed to identify any error committed by the RTC or the
Court of Appeals, both in their respective appreciations of the evidence
presented before them and in the conclusion they arrived at.
There was no reason why the police
officers involved would exact retribution from Loreto. It must be noted that one of his wives filed a
complaint against Inspector Pascual, PO1 Ramos, PO1 Orig and PO3 Bernardo for
illegal arrest, planting of evidence and robbery in relation to Loreto’s first
arrest on
Although PO1 Bantog failed to recall
from which pants pocket he seized the ten sachets and the exact quantity of
drugs he bought from Loreto, said omission cannot affect the cause of the
prosecution. This only shows an honest
lack of recollection of the minor and inconsequential aspect of what transpired
during the entrapment operation. It
would be a tall order, indeed, to require the witness to recall every minute
detail of an incident, i.e., from which
pocket PO1 got the ten sachets and the quantity of the shabu sold. If the event had
transpired in rapid succession amid the flurry and excitement of the moment, it
would be hard for the arresting officer to absorb all the nitty gritty of what
went on during the incident in question.
Comparing the defense version with
that of the arresting/entrapping police officer as to what really happened at about
Once again, this Court stresses that a buy-bust operation is a legally effective and proven procedure, sanctioned by law, for apprehending drug peddlers and distributors.[32] It is often utilized by law enforcers for the purpose of trapping and capturing lawbreakers in the execution of their nefarious activities.[33] This Court, of course, is not unaware that in some instances, law enforcers resort to the practice of planting evidence to extract information or even to harass civilians. But the defense of frame-up in drug cases requires strong and convincing evidence because of the presumption that the law enforcement agencies acted in the regular performance of their official duties. Moreover, the defense of denial or frame-up, like alibi, has been 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 violations of the drugs law.
In sum, in Criminal Case No. 12832-D,
the Court, just like the RTC and the Court of Appeals, is convinced that the
prosecution’s evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt the charge of violation
of Section 5, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 (illegal sale of shabu). Also proven by the same quantum of evidence was
the charge for violation of Section 11, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165
(illegal possession of shabu) in
Criminal Case No. 12833-D, Loreto having knowingly carried with him the ten plastic
sachets of shabu without legal
authority at the time he was apprehended during the buy-bust operation.
In the illegal sale, in Criminal Case
No. 12832-D, the RTC imposed upon Loreto the penalty of life imprisonment and a
fine of P500,000.00; while in the illegal possession, in Criminal
Case No. 12833-D, he was sentenced to the
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from 12 years and 1 day to 14
years and to pay the fine of P300,000.00.
Under Section 5, Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165, the unauthorized sale of shabu, regardless of its quantity and purity, 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, however, to the enactment of
Republic Act No. 9346 entitled, "An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of
Death Penalty in the P500,000.00 on Loreto for the illegal sale
of shabu.
The possession of dangerous drugs is
punished under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. Paragraph 2,
No. 3 thereof, reads:
Sec. 11. Possession
of Dangerous Drugs. – x x x.
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 x x x methamphetamine hydrochloride x x x.
In the instant case, Loreto was
caught in possession of one gram and 11 decigrams (1.11 grams) of shabu. The penalty imposed by the RTC is proper.
WHEREFORE, the
instant appeal is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
CR H.C No. 02544 which affirmed in toto
the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 267 convicting Loreto
C. Daria, Jr. “alias” Tayap of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic
Act No. 9165, sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, and imposing
upon him a fine of P500,000.00, and, for violation of Section 11,
Article II, Republic Act No. 9165, imposing upon him the indeterminate penalty
of imprisonment ranging from 12 years and 1 day to 14 years and a fine of P300,000.00,
is AFFIRMED in toto.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOAssociate Justice |
Associate Justice
Chairperson
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
|
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
|
|
|
DIOSDADO M. PERALTAAssociate 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
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Vicente Q. Roxas with Associate Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Ramon R. Garcia, concurring; rollo, pp. 2-20.
[2] Penned by Judge Florito S. Macalino; records, pp. 113-123.
[3] SECTION 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.
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, couriers 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. 1.
[5] Section 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
(5) 50 grams or more of methamphetamine 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. 11.
[7] TSN,
[8]
[9]
[10] TSN,
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16] Records, p. 7.
[17]
[18] G.R. No. 181747,
[19] People v. Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, 28 July 2008, 560 SCRA 430, 446-447; People v. Concepcion, G.R. No. 178876, 27 June 2008, 556 SCRA 421, 436-437; People v. Del Monte, G.R. No. 179940, 23 April 2008. 552 SCRA 627, 636-637.
[20] People
v. De los Reyes, G.R. No. 106874,
[21] People v. Agulay, supra note 18 at 622-624.
[22] People
v. Dumlao, G.R. No. 181599,
[23]
[24] TSN,
[25] TSN,
[26] Records, p. 39.
[27] People v. Matito, 468 Phil. 14, 24 (2004).
[28]
[29] People v. Piedad, 441 Phil. 818, 839 (2002).
[30] People
v. Castillo, G.R. No. 118912,
[31] People
v.
[32] People v. Chua Uy, 384 Phil. 70, 85 (2000).
[33]