THIRD DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - MELODY GUTIERREZ y
LAURIADA, Accused-Appellant. |
G.R.
No. 187156
Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
Chairperson, CHICO-NAZARIO, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, and PERALTA, JJ. Promulgated: September
8, 2009 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
NACHURA, J.:
Before this Court is an appeal by
accused Melody Gutierrez y Lauriada of the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision[1] in
CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02884 affirming her conviction by the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Makati City[2] for
violations of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165), or the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002.
On January 25, 2007, a confidential
informant known as Amboy went to the Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task
Force (SAID-SOTF) of the Makati Police Station, and reported that accused and another,
known by his alias Toto, were selling illegal drugs on
At 6:30 that evening, the team and
informant Amboy proceeded to
Accused Melody Gutierrez was charged for
violation of Article II, Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165 before the Makati City
RTC for, first, selling P300.00 worth of methylamphetamine hydrochloride
weighing 0.02 gram;[5] and
second, for possession, custody and control of three plastic sachets of
methylamphetamine hydrochloride weighing 0.02 gram each.[6]
At the trial, accused denied the
charges against her. She claimed that on the day she was arrested,
she was having a snack on
In a Decision[8]
dated May 25, 2007, the trial court held that the prosecution was able to prove
the elements of the illegal sale of shabu, on one hand, and the illegal
possession of a dangerous drug on the other. Thus, it found the accused guilty of the
offenses charged, to wit:
WHEREFORE, it appearing that the guilt of accused MELODY GUTIERREZ y LAURIADA was proven beyond reasonable doubt, for the offenses of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165, as principal, with no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, she is hereby sentenced:
1.
In Criminal Case No. 07-286, to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00;
2.
In Criminal Case No. 07-287, to suffer imprisonment for an indeterminate term
of fourteen [14] years eight [8] months and one [1] day, as minimum, and to pay
a fine of P300,000.00; and
3. To pay the costs.
Let the 0.02-gram, 0.02-gram, 0.02-gram, and 0.02 gram; (sic) of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride be turned-over (sic) to the PDEA for proper disposition.
SO ORDERED.
Accused
appealed her conviction to the Court of Appeals. She argued that her guilt was not proven,
because nobody corroborated the testimony of PO1 Orante; and the other
prosecution witness, MADAC Operative Joebert Dela Peńa, admitted that his sole
participation was in assisting in the arrest of the accused. Accused also questioned the failure of the
prosecution to present the confidential informant as witness, and the forensic
chemist to testify the veracity of the laboratory report. Accused claimed that the sole eyewitness
testimony of PO1 Orante to the sale was insufficient to prove her guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.[9]
The CA affirmed the RTC Decision in toto in a Decision dated September
30, 2008.[10] It held that what is material is proof that
the transaction took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence, both of
which were proven by the testimony of PO1 Orante. Contrary to accused’s contention, the
consummation of the sale was corroborated by MADAC Operative Dela Peńa.[11]
As to the failure of the prosecution
to present the forensic chemist who examined the content of the plastic sachets
seized from accused, the CA said this does not diminish the integrity of the
testimonies of the other prosecution witnesses. According to the CA, the witnesses were able
to prove the chain of custody from the time PO1 Orante took possession of the
illegal drugs from accused up to the time they were offered in evidence. Right after the arrest, PO1 Orante prepared
Spot Report No. STN2-012507-281, listing as evidence seized “four pieces of
small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing suspected ‘shabu;’ and
presented as ‘JCO’ as subject of sale and ‘JCO-1’ TO ‘JCO-3’ as subject of
possession.” He also prepared an
acknowledgment receipt listing all the items seized from accused. Thereafter,
the sachets were delivered to the PNP Crime Laboratory by PO1 Orante himself,
as shown in the stamp of receipt by the PNP Crime Laboratory Southern Police
District. These circumstances, the CA
said, sufficiently established the unbroken chain of custody of the seized illegal
drugs.[12] Moreover, the defense admitted the execution
and authenticity of the Physical Science Report during the pre-trial.[13]
Accused is now before this Court
assailing the CA’s Decision. In a
Resolution[14] dated
June 10, 2009, the Court accepted accused’s appeal and notified the parties
that they may submit their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desire. In separate Manifestations, accused, through
the Public Attorney’s Office, and the People of the
We affirm the Decision of the CA.
We find no reason to disturb the
factual findings of the trial court, as affirmed by the CA. The CA exhaustively discussed the facts of the
case, and we agree with its conclusion that the prosecution proved the
accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
However, the CA, in affirming the
trial court’s decision in toto,
overlooked the error in the penalty imposed by the latter in Criminal Case No.
07-287. The trial court sentenced accused to “imprisonment for an indeterminate
term of fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day, as minimum,”
without providing for the maximum penalty.
Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
accused shall be sentenced to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of
which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by law punishing the offense, and the
minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same.
Article II, Section 11 of RA 9165
provides:
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
(5) 50 grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride or “shabu;”
x x x
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows:
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 “ecstacy,” 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.
Hence,
the maximum penalty should be in the range of 17 years, four (4) months, and
one (1) day to 20 years, while the minimum should not be less than 12 years and
one day to 14 years and eight (8) months.
The
minimum penalty set by the trial court is within the proper range; but as to
the maximum penalty, considering that there are no aggravating circumstances,
we find that the penalty of imprisonment for 17 years, four (4) months, and one
(1) day is appropriate.
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises
considered, the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. Accused is hereby sentenced, in Criminal Case
No. 07-287, to an indeterminate sentence of 12 years, and one (1) day, as
minimum, to 14 years, as maximum. In all
other respects, the Decision of the
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate
Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate
Justice |
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate
Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution 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
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and
the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the
above Resolution had been 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 Justice Sixto C. Marella, Jr., with Justices Amelita G. Tolentino and Japar B. Dimaampao, concurring, rollo, pp. 2-14.
[2] RTC Decision, CA rollo, pp. 12-17.
[3] Rollo, p. 4.
[4]
[5] CA rollo, Criminal Case No. 07-286, p. 39.
[6]
[7]
[8] Penned by Judge Francisco B. Ibay, CA rollo, pp. 12-17.
[9] CA rollo, p. 36.
[10] Supra note 1.
[11] Rollo, p. 8.
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]