|
PEOPLE OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - joseph
serrano and anthony serrano, Accused-Appellants. |
|
G.R. No.
179038
Present:
PUNO, C.J.,
Chairperson, CARPIO MORALES, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BERSAMIN, and VILLARAMA, JR., JJ. Promulgated: May
6, 2010 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
Submitted
for Our review is the Decision[1] dated
December 29, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00494 which affirmed the decision of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 70, in Criminal Case Nos. 12007-D
and 12008-D. In Criminal Case No. 12007-D, both
accused-appellants Joseph and Anthony Serrano were found guilty of the illegal sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu),
a dangerous drug, in violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No.
9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, while
in Criminal Case No. 12008-D, accused-appellant Anthony Serrano was found
guilty of illegal possession of said drug in violation of Section 11, Article
II of the same Act.
In
Criminal Case No. 12007-D, the Information[2] dated
January 22, 2003 charged accused-appellants Joseph and Anthony Serrano with
violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165[3] as
follows:
Criminal
Case No. 12007-D
On or about January 18, 2003, in Pasig
City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused,
conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping and aiding one
another, not being lawfully authorized by law, did, then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and give away to PO1 Michael Familara,
a police poseur-buyer, one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet
containing five centigrams (0.05 gram)
of white crystalline substance, which was found positive to the test for methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu),
a dangerous drug, in violation of the said law. (Emphases ours.)
While
in Criminal Case No. 12008-D, the Information[4] charged
accused-appellant Anthony Serrano with violation of Section 11, Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165,[5]
committed as follows:
Criminal
Case No. 12008-D
On or about January 18, 2003, in Pasig
City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, not
being lawfully authorized to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and under his
custody and control four (4) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets each
containing the following:
a) nineteen decigrams (0.19 gram)
b) twenty decigrams (0.20 gram)
c) twenty three decigrams (0.23 gram)
d) fifteen decigrams (0.15 gram)
of white crystalline substance, which
were found positive to the test for methylamphetamine
hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.
(Emphases ours.)
When
arraigned, accused-appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges. After the pre-trial conference was terminated
without any stipulations or admissions entered into by the parties, Criminal
Case Nos. 12007-D and 12008-D were jointly tried.
The prosecution presented the following witnesses: the
poseur-buyer, Police Officer (PO) 1 Michael Familara (PO1 Familara); the other
members of the buy-bust operation team, namely, Senior Police Officer (SPO) 3
Leneal Matias (SPO3 Matias) and PO3 Carlo Luna (PO3 Luna); and the forensic
chemist, P/Inspector Lourdeliza M. Gural (P/Insp. Gural). PO1 Familara, SPO3 Matias and PO3 Luna were
all officers of the Pasig Police Station, Drug Enforcement Division, while
P/Insp. Gural was a member of the Eastern Police District Crime Laboratory.
The object and documentary evidence for the prosecution included,
among others: the five heat-sealed plastic sachets allegedly recovered from the
accused-appellants at the time of the arrest; Chemistry Report No. D-120-03E,[6]
confirming that the contents of the said plastic sachets were methylamphetamine hydrochloride
or
shabu; and the marked money used in the buy-bust operation.
The
Court of Appeals summarized the prosecution’s version of events as follows:
In the afternoon of January 18, 2003,
Major Jerry Galvan received a telephone call from a concerned citizen about an
illegal drug trade being conducted by a certain alias “Tune” in Barangay
Bambang,
Preparations were then made,
and two (2) One Hundred Peso bills were marked “MRF” and delivered to the
assigned poseur-buyer, PO1 FAMILARA.
The composite team thereafter
proceeded to E. Jacinto St. Brgy. Bambang,
The confidential informant greeted the
accused-appellant JOSEPH and informed him that his companion, PO1 FAMILARA,
would buy Php 200.00 worth of shabu.
Accused-appellant JOSEPH
thereafter knocked at the door of “Tune”, who turned out to be
accused-appellant ANTHONY.
Accused-appellant ANTHONY partially opened the door and conferred with
the accused-appellant JOSEPH. PO1
FAMILARA thereafter handed the marked money to the accused-appellant JOSEPH,
who in turn handed the same to the accused-appellant ANTHONY. Upon receiving the money, accused-appellant
ANTHONY then took out a plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance
from his pocket and handed the same to the accused-appellant JOSEPH. Accused-appellant JOSEPH, in turn, handed the
plastic sachets to PO1 FAMILARA.
FAMILARA thereafter
immediately grabbed accused-appellant JOSEPH’s hand while the rest of the team
rushed to the scene to arrest the accused-appellants. Accused-appellant ANTHONY attempted to escape
to his house but was subsequently likewise apprehended.
Both accused-appellants were
bodily frisked after their apprehension.
Recovered from accused-appellant ANTHONY were four heat-sealed plastic
sachets with white crystalline substances, two (2) marked one hundred peso
bills, a pair of scissors, a disposable lighter and one plastic bag containing
several pieces of empty plastic sachets.
However, nothing aside from the heat-sealed plastic sachet he previously
handed to PO1 FAMILARA was recovered from accused-appellant JOSEPH.
Thereafter, the
accused-appellants were brought to the Pasig Police Station for further
investigation, and the evidence recovered were marked and forwarded to the PNP
Crime Laboratory for examination.
Upon examination by P/Insp.
Lourdeliza Gural, the five heat-sealed plastic sachets containing white
crystalline substances were found positive [for] Methylamphetamine
Hydrochloride or commonly known as “shabu.”[7]
In
their defense, both accused-appellants denied the charges against them. Joseph Serrano averred that he was at his
brother’s (Anthony’s) house at the time of the arrest to fetch the latter
because they, in turn, were going to fetch another sibling in Cubao,
For his
part, Anthony alleged that he was inside the comfort room of his house when he
heard a commotion. When he came out of
the comfort room, he saw his brother Joseph in handcuffs and being held by a
man with a gun. Anthony allegedly politely
inquired why the men with guns were holding his brother and the men replied
that they were police officers. The said
officers then asked the accused-appellants to go with them to the Pasig Police
Station, which the accused-appellants both did voluntarily. Anthony further claimed that three police
officers searched his house but found nothing and that he and Joseph only came
to know the reason for their arrest and detention when they were already in
court.[9]
The accused-appellants offered no documentary
evidence.[10]
In a Decision[11]
dated August 20, 2004, the RTC rendered judgment convicting the brothers Joseph and Anthony Serrano for illegal sale of shabu in Criminal
Case No. 12007-D and Anthony
Serrano for
illegal possession of shabu in Criminal Case No. 12008-D. The fallo
of the RTC Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
In
Criminal Case No. 12007-D, filed against accused Anthony Serrano and Joseph
Serrano for Violation of Section
5, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 (illegal sale of shabu), both accused are
hereby sentenced to LIFE IMPRISONMENT and
to solidarily pay a fine of Five Hundred
Thousand Pesos (PHP 500,000.00).
In Criminal
Case No. 12008-D, filed only
against accused Anthony Serrano for
Violation of Section 11, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 (illegal possession
of shabu), said accused is hereby sentenced to TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY to TWENTY (20) YEARS and to pay a
Fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos
(PHP300,000.00).
Considering the penalty
imposed by the Court, the immediate commitment of herein accused to the
National Penitentiary is hereby ordered.
Pursuant to Section 20 of
Republic Act 9165, the amount of Two Hundred Pesos (PHP200.00) recovered from
the accused representing the proceeds from the illegal sale of the plastic
sachet of shabu is hereby ordered forfeited in favor of the government.
Again, pursuant to Section 21
of the same law, the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) is hereby
ordered to take charge and have custody of the plastic sachets of shabu and
drug paraphernalia, subject of these cases.
Costs against the accused.[12]
In
arriving at its Decision, the RTC relied on the presumption of regularity in
the performance of official duty in ascribing greater credence to the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses vis-à-vis
what it termed as “self-serving averments” of the accused-appellants. The trial court further held that in the
absence of evidence of improper motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses
to testify falsely against the accused-appellants, the testimonies of the
former are entitled to full faith and credit.[13]
In view
of the imposition of the penalty of life imprisonment on the
accused-appellants, the case was elevated to the Court of Appeals for automatic
review pursuant to this Court’s ruling in People
v. Mateo.[14]
As we
previously stated at the outset, the Court of Appeals, in its assailed Decision
of December 29, 2006, affirmed that of the RTC.
Accused-appellants
appealed their convictions via a
Notice of Appeal pursuant to Section 13(c), Rule 124 of the Rules of Criminal
Procedure, as amended. With the
elevation of the records to this Court and the acceptance of the appeal, the
parties were required to file their respective supplemental briefs, if they so
desired, within 30 days from notice.[15] In their respective Manifestations,[16]
the parties waived the filing of supplemental briefs and instead merely adopted
their earlier Briefs before the Court of Appeals.
In
their Brief,[17]
accused-appellants assign two errors allegedly committed by the trial court, to
wit:
I.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE EXISTENCE OF CONSPIRACY IN THE CASE AT BAR.
II.
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS GUILTY OF THE CRIMES CHARGED DESPITE THE PROSECUTION’S FAILURE TO PROVE THEIR GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
We are unconvinced that the trial court indeed
committed the foregoing errors.
On the first assigned error, accused-appellants
contend that the prosecution evidence was insufficient to establish beyond
reasonable doubt the fact of conspiracy between them in the illegal drug
sale. They point out that the testimony
of the poseur-buyer, PO1 Familara, that it was Joseph who received the marked
money from him, was contradictory to his and the other officers’ testimonies
that the same was recovered from Anthony by another arresting officer, PO3
Luna.
After a careful perusal of the
transcripts of the testimonies of the three police officers who were involved
in the buy-bust operation, we find no contradiction or inconsistency in the
testimony of PO1 Familara. He and his
fellow officer, SPO3 Matias, narrated that although PO1 Familara handed the
marked money to Joseph, Joseph in turn handed the money to his brother,
Anthony. It was only after taking the
marked bills from Joseph that Anthony produced a sachet of shabu from his pocket which he handed to Joseph to give to the
poseur-buyer. Thus, the fact that the
marked bills were found in the possession of Anthony during the arrest was more
than sufficiently explained.
Reviewing
assiduously the prosecution’s evidence, we conclude that the trial court
correctly found that there was conspiracy between the accused-appellants in
this case.
It
is well-entrenched in our jurisprudence that:
Conspiracy is always predominantly mental
in composition because it consists primarily of a meeting of minds and
intent. By its nature, conspiracy is planned in utmost secrecy. Hence, for collective responsibility to be established, it is not
necessary that conspiracy be proved by direct evidence of a prior agreement to
commit the crime as only rarely would such agreement be demonstrable since,
in the nature of things, criminal undertakings are rarely documented by
agreements in writing.
But
the courts are not without resort in the determination of its presence.
The existence of conspiracy may be inferred and proved through the acts of the
accused, whose conduct before, during and after the commission of the crime
point to a common purpose, concert of action, and community of interest. In short, conduct may
establish conspiracy.
An accepted badge of conspiracy is when the
accused by their acts aimed at the same object, one performing one part and
another performing another so as to complete it with a view to the attainment
of the same object, and their acts though apparently independent were in
fact concerted and cooperative, indicating closeness of personal association,
concerted action and concurrence of sentiments.[18] (Emphases ours.)
Thus,
in
People v. Santos,[19]
which has similar factual antecedents as this case, the Court had the occasion
to rule that:
There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. The same degree of proof necessary to prove the crime is required to support a finding of criminal conspiracy. Direct proof, however, is not essential to show conspiracy. It need not be shown that the parties actually came together and agreed in express terms to enter into and pursue a common design. Proof of concerted action before, during and after the crime, which demonstrates their unity of design and objective is sufficient. As correctly held by the trial court, the act of appellant Santos in receiving the marked money from PO3 Luna and handing the same to appellant Catoc, who in turn gave a sachet containing shabu to appellant Santos to give the policeman, unmistakably revealed a common purpose and a community of interest indicative of a conspiracy between the appellants. (Emphasis ours.)
As testified to by the police officers involved in
the buy-bust operation, it was accused-appellant Joseph who negotiated with the
poseur-buyer, PO1 Familara, received the buy-bust money, and handed the same to
Anthony. Anthony, after receiving the
money from Joseph, handed the latter the sachet of shabu to be given to PO1 Familara.
It was Joseph who delivered the illegal drug to PO1 Familara. When Anthony was frisked during the arrest,
the police officers retrieved the marked money that Joseph gave him, together
with other sachets of shabu and
paraphernalia used in packing the illegal drug, such as several empty plastic
bags, a disposable lighter and a pair of scissors. Clearly, there was concerted action between
the brothers Joseph and Anthony before, during and after the offense which ably
demonstrated their unity of design and objective to sell the dangerous drug.
Thus, we see no reason to disturb the RTC’s
finding, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, that:
While it was with accused Joseph Serrano
that PO1 Familara transacted regarding the acquisition of shabu and to whom he
paid the buy bust money, it was from accused Anthony Serrano that accused
Joseph Serrano actually got the dangerous drugs subject of the transaction. From the above scenario, no other conclusion
can be drawn but that both accused were engaged in the illegal trade.[20]
As
for the second assigned error in their Brief, accused-appellants insist that
the prosecution failed to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They contend that the RTC was mistaken in
giving full faith and credence to the testimonies of the police officers and in
upholding the presumption of regularity in the performance of said officers’
official functions which they contend cannot overcome the constitutional
presumption of innocence in their favor.
Contrary to
the accused-appellants’ assertion, their constitutional right to be presumed
innocent was not infringed by the reliance of the trial court on the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions on the part
of the arresting officers. In several
cases, this Court has relied on such a presumption of regularity in order to
determine if the testimonies of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust
operation deserve full faith and credit.[21] In People
v. Llamado,[22] we
held:
In cases involving violations of Dangerous Drugs Act, credence should be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses especially when they are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there be evidence to the contrary. Moreover, in the absence of proof of motive to falsely impute such a serious crime against the appellant, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, as well as the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, shall prevail over appellant’s self-serving and uncorroborated denial. (Emphasis ours.)
The jurisprudence on this point cited in accused-appellants’
Brief cannot be applied to their case.
In People v. Tan,[23] People v. Labarias[24] and
People v. Dismuke,[25] the
accused had sufficiently proven irregularities in the conduct of the buy-bust
operation and/or ill motives on the part of the police officers which rebutted
the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duty. In the case at bar, accused-appellants did
not prove any irregularity in the procedures undertaken by the police officers
nor did they ascribe bad faith or any improper motive to the police officers
involved. On the contrary,
accused-appellant Joseph Serrano testified on cross-examination that he did not
know of any reason for the police to file charges against him.[26]
Verily, we
find that the degree of proof required in criminal cases has been met in this
instance. Hence, there is no reason to
deviate from both the lower courts’ findings and conclusions that
accused-appellants committed the offenses charged.
Fundamental
is the principle 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; and speculative, arbitrary and
unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. The reason for this is that the trial court
is in a better position to decide the credibility of witnesses, having heard
their testimonies and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during
the trial. The rule finds an even more
stringent application where said findings are sustained by the Court of
Appeals.[27]
For the successful prosecution
of offenses involving the illegal sale of drugs under Section 5,
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the
following elements must be proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, object,
and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment
therefor. What is material to the
prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the
transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court
of evidence of corpus delicti. [28]
Here, the records bear out that all the elements of the offense have been established beyond reasonable doubt.
The
Court finds the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses credible,
straightforward and corroborative of each other. Their testimonies
sufficiently proved that a legitimate buy-bust operation took place wherein the
accused-appellants were apprehended.
Moreover, the shabu subject of the sale was brought to, and
properly identified in, court. Accused-appellants
were likewise positively identified as the persons who sold the sachet
containing the crystalline substance which was later confirmed to be shabu according
to the Chemistry Report of the forensic chemist.
PO1 Familara, the poseur-buyer, testified, thus:
Q Mr. Witness, did you proceed to the
place of alias “Tune” as instructed by your chief, Major Galvan?
A Yes, sir. We went to the place. When we reached the place, my companions,
SPO3 Leneal Matias and PO3 Carlo Luna positioned themselves in a place wherein
they could see me.
Q And what is your role in this, you said
buy-bust operation to be conducted?
A I
was assigned police poseur-buyer, sir.
Q Were you able to meet this alias
“Tune”?
A Upon reaching the place, the
confidential informant pointed to us the house wherein we saw a male person
standing, sir.
Q And what did you do next when the
confidential informant pointed to a person standing near the house?
A He told us that the place wherein a
male person was standing is the house of Tune and the male person who was
standing there is Tune’s brother, sir.
Q So, what did you do next, Mr. Witness,
when the house of Tune was pointed to you by the confidential informant?
A When we reached the house, the
confidential informant greeted the brother of Tune being familiar to him, sir.
Q And what was (sic) the greetings all
about made by the confidential informant to the brother of Tune?
A The confidential informant asked the
male person, Pare, kumusta na and the
male person answered, Okey lang. Anong
kailangan mo?
Q Where were you and the members of your
team when the informant greeted the brother of Tune?
A I was there together with the
confidential informant, sir.
Q How about the other members of your
team? Where were they?
A They positioned themselves in a place
farther from us but they could see me, sir.
Q What else happened after the informant
greeted the brother of Tune?
A The confidential informant told the
brother of Tune that I will be buying shabu
for two pesos (sic) so he knocked at the door and asked if shabu was available, sir.
Q Now, when the brother of alias Tune
knocked on the door, to (sic) whose house did he knock?
A Joseph knocked at the door where he was
standing, sir.
Q What happened next, Mr. Witness, after
the brother of alias “Tune” knocked on the door near where he was standing?
A When alias “Tune” came out of the
house, the confidential informant pointed him to me saying that that person is
Tune, sir.
Q And what else happened after the man
alias “Tune” came out from the house?
A Joseph and Tune talked and the
confidential informant got the money from me so he can pay for the drugs, sir.
Q And what money did the confidential
informant got from you after alias “Tune” came out of the house?
A The money which the confidential
informant took from me where (sic) the two 100-peso bills where I placed my
initials (sic) which will be used as buy-bust money for the operation, sir.
Q Did you give that money to the
confidential informant?
A No,
sir. I was the one who personally handed
the money to Joseph.
Q Now,
did you tell anything to Joseph when you handed the money?
A Nothing,
sir. It was the confidential informant
who talked with him, sir.
Q What happened after you gave the money to Joseph?
A After
I have given the money to Tune’s brother, Joseph again knocked at the door so
Tune would come out of the house, sir.
Q Mr.
Witness, could you tell us again to whom did you give the money which you said
was marked?
A To
one named Joseph, sir.
Q That
Joseph is the alias “Tune”?
A No,
sir. He is the brother of one alias
“Tune”.
Q After
handing the money which you said was marked to Joseph, what happened?
A After
I have given the money to Joseph, Joseph knocked at the door and when Tune
opened the door and took the money from Joseph, Tune took [the] sachet of shabu from his pocket to be given to
me. Tune gave first the shabu to Joseph and it was Joseph who
handed the shabu to me because it was
Joseph who was nearer to me, sir.
Q How
far were you from alias “Tune” when he took out from his pocket one sachet of shabu?
A Dito po hanggang dyan sa upuan.
PROSEC ALBERTO -
Witness pointing to a distance, Your
Honor, of at least two meters.
ATTY. SAMSON -
That would be at least three meters from
the area where the witness is sitting to this chair.
PROSEC ALBERTO -
We will stipulate that the distance is
three meters, Your Honor.
Q How about your distance to Joseph?
A About an arm’s length, sir.
Q Now,
what did Joseph do with the plastic sachet of shabu after alias Tune gave him the sachet of shabu?
A After
that, he immediately handed to me the sachet of shabu, after which, I immediately grabbed his hand and tried to
apprehend him, sir.
Q Who
in particular gave you the plastic of shabu?
A The
brother of Tune, sir.
Q What
is the name of that brother?
A Joseph
Serrano, sir.
Q Mr.
Witness, if that Joseph Serrano is present in Court, will you be able to
identify him?
A Yes,
sir.
Q Please
point to him if he is in Court?
COURT INTERPRETER -
Witness
tapped the shoulder of a male person who when asked identified himself as
Joseph Serrano.
PROSEC ALBERTO -
How about Anthony Serrano? Could you identify him?
A
Yes, sir.
Q Please
do, Mr. Witness, if he is in Court.
COURT INTERPRETER -
Witness
tapping the shoulder of a male person who when asked identified himself as
Anthony Serrano.[29]
PO1
Familara further testified that when he grabbed Joseph’s hand and tried to
apprehend the latter, the rest of the buy-bust team approached and helped him
in arresting the accused-appellants.
Four (4) other plastic sachets of shabu
and the marked two 100-peso bills, among others, were later recovered from
Anthony.[30] As
aforesaid, the testimonies of the other members of the buy-bust team, SPO3 Matias
and PO3 Luna, substantially corroborated PO1 Familara's aforementioned
testimony.
With respect to the charge of illegal possession of
dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act
No. 9165 against accused-appellant Anthony Serrano, we also find that the
elements of the offense have been established by the evidence of the
prosecution.
In illegal possession of
dangerous drugs, the elements are: (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 possessed the
said drug.[31]
The
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, most notably that of the arresting
officer, PO3 Luna, showed that four sachets containing white crystalline
substance were recovered from accused-appellant Anthony when the latter
was told to empty his pockets upon his apprehension.[32] As a result of a chemical analysis thereof,
the substance in the plastic sachets was confirmed to be shabu.
In
view of the positive and categorical testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses, the denials of the accused-appellants must,
perforce, fail.
Mere
denial cannot prevail over the positive testimony of a witness; it is
self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary
weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative
matters. As between the categorical
testimony that rings of truth, on one hand, and a bare denial, on the other,
the former is generally held to prevail.[33]
Accused-appellants’
guilt for the offenses charged against them has, therefore, been proven beyond
reasonable doubt.
Under
Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the sale of any dangerous drug, regardless
of quantity and purity, is punishable by life imprisonment to death and a fine
of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00). In the absence of any mitigating or
aggravating circumstance, the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of Five
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) imposed by the RTC on
accused-appellants Joseph and Anthony Serrano in Criminal Case No. 12007-D and
upheld by the Court of Appeals was proper.
Likewise sustained is the penalty of twelve (12)
years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years imprisonment and a fine of Three
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) imposed on accused-appellant
Anthony Serrano in Criminal Case No. 12008-D for illegal possession of shabu, the total quantity of which is
0.77 gram. Section 11,
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 imposes the penalty of 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.
WHEREFORE, premises considered,
the instant appeal is DENIED. The
Decision dated December 29, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00494 affirming the Decision of the Regional
Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 70, in Criminal Case No. 12007-D and Criminal
Case No. 12008-D is hereby AFFIRMED.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
|
REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice Chairperson |
|
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Vicente Q. Roxas with Associate Justices Josefina Guevarra-Salonga and Apolinario Bruselas, Jr., concurring; rollo, pp. 2-23.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 9-10.
[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] CA rollo, pp. 11-12.
[5] Sec. 11. Possession
of Dangerous Drugs.
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. 12.
[7] Rollo, pp. 5-7.
[8] TSN, March 10, 2004, pp. 5-7.
[9] TSN, July 14, 2004, pp. 7-13.
[10]
[11] CA rollo, pp. 19-25.
[12]
[13]
[14] G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640.
[15] Rollo, p. 28.
[16]
[17] CA rollo, pp. 59-72.
[18] People v.
[19] G.R. No. 176735, June 26, 2008, 555 SCRA 578, 602-603.
[20] CA rollo, p. 23.
[21] People v.
[22] G.R. No. 185278, March 13, 2009, 581 SCRA 544, 552.
[23] 432 Phil. 171 (2002).
[24] G.R. No. 87165, January 25, 1993, 217 SCRA 483.
[25] G.R. No. 108453, July 11, 1994, 234 SCRA 51.
[26] TSN, March 10, 2004, p. 9.
[27] People v.
[28]
[29] TSN, May 27, 2003, pp. 13-19.
[30]
[31] People v. Pringas, G.R. No. 175928,
August 31, 2007, 531 SCRA 828, 846.
[32] TSN, October 7, 2003, pp. 8-9.
[33] People v. Dumlao, G.R. No. 181599, August 20, 2008, 562 SCRA
762, 769.