FIRST
DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE
Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - LORIE
VILLAHERMOSA y LECO, Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 186465 Present:
Chairperson, VELASCO, JR., LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, PERALTA,* and PEREZ,
JJ. Promulgated: June 1, 2011 |
|
|
|
|
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
PEREZ, J.:
On appeal is the Decision[1]
dated 23 April 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 02598,
affirming in toto the Decision[2]
dated 3 October 2006 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch
65, in Criminal Case Nos. 02-3170 to 02-3172, finding herein appellant Lorie
Villahermosa y Leco guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5,[3] 11[4]
and 12,[5]
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
In
three separate Informations[6]
all dated 4 November 2002, appellant Lorie Villahermosa y Leco was charged with violation of Sections 5, 11 and 12, Article
II of Republic Act No. 9165, which were respectively docketed as Criminal Case
No. 02-3170, Criminal Case No. 02-3171 and Criminal Case No. 02-3172. The Informations read as follows:
Criminal Case No. 02-3170
That on or about the 31st day of October, 2002, in the City of Makati, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named [appellant], did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously without being authorized by law, sell, distribute and transport zero point zero gram (sic) (0.06) and zero point zero three gram (0.03) or a total of zero point zero nine gram (0.09) of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.[7] [Emphasis supplied].
Criminal
Case No. 02-3171
That on or about the 31st day of October, 2002, in the City of Makati, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named [appellant], not being lawfully authorized to possess or otherwise use any dangerous drug and without the corresponding license or prescription, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his (sic) possession, direct custody and control Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) weighing zero point fifty four gram (0.54), zero point zero two gram (0.02), zero point zero five gram (0.05), zero point zero three gram (0.03), traces and zero point zero three gram (0.03) or a total of zero point sixty seven gram (0.67) which is a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.[8] [Emphasis supplied].
Criminal Case No. 02-3172
That on or about the 31st day of October, 2002, in the City of Makati, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named [appellant], not being lawfully authorized to possess or otherwise use any dangerous drug and without the corresponding license or prescription, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously use and possess one (1) improvised glass tooter, five (5) strips of aluminum foil, fourteen (14) pieces of transparent plastic sachets and three (3) pieces disposable lighters, in violation of the aforesaid law.[9] [Emphasis supplied].
Upon
arraignment, appellant, assisted by counsel de
oficio, pleaded NOT GUILTY to all
charges.[10]
By agreement of the parties, the
pre-trial was terminated for their failure to agree to any stipulation.[11] Trial on the merits thereafter followed.
The
prosecution presented the testimonies of the following witnesses: Police Inspector Miladenia O. Tapan
(P/Insp. Tapan), forensic chemical officer assigned at the Philippine
National Police Headquarters, Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime
Laboratory, Camp Crame, Quezon City; Amado
Silverio (Silverio), Makati Anti Drug Abuse Council (MADAC) operative who
acted as the poseur-buyer in the
buy-bust operation against appellant; Police
Officer 2 Rolando Tizon (PO2 Tizon), member of the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency (PDEA) who served as the arresting officer of the buy-bust
operation against appellant; and Police
Senior Inspector Helson B. Walin (P/Sr. Insp. Walin), assigned with the
Special Enforcement Group of the Metro Manila Regional Office of PDEA and the
team leader of the buy-bust team formed against appellant.
The facts as culled from the records
and testimonies of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses are as follows:
On
or about
Upon
arrival thereat at around
Thereafter,
P/Sr. Insp. Walin formed a buy-bust team composed of himself, PO2 Tizon,
Silverio, Brgy. Chairman Del Prado
and the other members of MADAC Cluster 3.[17] A briefing on how to carry out their buy-bust
operation against appellant was then conducted by P/Sr. Insp. Walin, being the
team leader thereof. In the said
briefing, Silverio and PO2 Tizon were designated as the poseur-buyer and arresting officer, respectively, while the rest of
the buy-bust team will serve as back-up.
Their pre-arranged signal would be the taking off of Silverios hat.[18] The buy-bust money consisting of four pieces
of P100 peso bills[19]
was also prepared with markings ASSJR placed thereon by Silverio. The latter marked the same while the buy-bust
team was still at the office of MADAC Cluster 3 at the barangay hall of Barangay
Sta. Cruz,
After the briefing, at around P400.00 worth of shabu.[22] Appellant then took out two small plastic
sachets from her pocket containing white crystalline substance and handed the
same to Silverio. Silverio, in turn,
handed to appellant the amount agreed upon, i.e.,
P400.00, which consists of four pieces of P100 peso bills marked
money.[23]
After the consummation of the sale, Silverio
gave their pre-arranged signal, which is the taking off of his hat. PO2 Tizon subsequently approached appellant. The other members of the buy-bust team
followed thereafter. PO2 Tizon then introduced
himself to appellant as PDEA officer and subsequently effected her arrest for
selling prohibited drugs. He also
apprised appellant of her constitutional rights and, thereafter, frisked her for
she might be carrying a deadly weapon.
PO2 Tizon similarly ordered appellant to empty her pockets, as well as
the plastic bag she was carrying at that moment. PO2 Tizon then recovered from appellant six
(6) more small plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance, the
buy-bust money consisting of four pieces of P100.00 peso bills amounting
to P400.00 and the following drug paraphernalia that were inside the
plastic bag appellant was carrying at the time of her arrest, to wit: 14 pieces
of unused transparent plastic sachets, three disposable lighters, an improvised
tooter and five strips of aluminum
foil.[24]
Afterwards, appellant was brought to
MADAC Cluster 3 Office at the barangay
hall of Barangay Sta. Cruz,
After all the items seized from
appellant were marked, a video of the same was taken by Jose Quibro and Susan
Enriquez, both of whom were cameraman and reporter, respectively, of GMA-7. An inventory[26]
of the same was also prepared by PO2 Tizon at MADAC Cluster 3 Office in the
presence of all MADAC Cluster 3 operatives, including Silverio, P/Sr. Insp.
Walin, Jose Quibro and Susan Enriquez of GMA-7, MADAC Cluster 3 Head, Brgy. Chairman Del Prado, and the Chief
of MADAC Pedro Opoc. The MADAC Cluster 3
operatives likewise photographed the items seized from appellant, which was
done also at the barangay hall of Barangay Sta. Cruz,
Appellant was, thereafter, brought by
the members of the buy-bust team to the PNP Crime Laboratory at
The results of appellants drug test[32]
yielded positive result while her physical examination[33]
revealed that she has not been forced as there was no sign of bruises on her
body. As regards the items seized from
appellant, they were all found positive[34]
for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.[35]
For
its part, the defense presented the lone testimony of the appellant who offered
a different version of what transpired on the day of her arrest.
Appellant
denied all the charges against her. She
claimed that prior to her arrest, she was a caretaker of certain niches at the
Appellant
recounted that on
At
the barangay hall, appellant was
asked what her name is and was then informed her that she has a case. However, she was not informed about the
charge or charges against her. Appellant
was then brought to an office where she was forced to urinate. When she failed to do so, she was ordered to
scoop some water from the toilet bowl to which she acceded. She gave it to the person who directed her to
urinate and the same was submitted as her urine sample. Appellant was detained thereafter.[38]
After
a meticulous evaluation of all the documentary, as well as testimonial evidence
offered by both parties, the trial court concluded that the prosecution has
sufficiently proven all the elements of the offenses charged against appellant. Thus, in its Decision dated
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is rendered as follows:
1. In Criminal
Case No. 02-3170, the Court finds [appellant] LORIE VILLAHERMOSA y LECO GUILTY of the charge for violation
of [Section] 5, [Article] II, [Republic Act No.] 9165 and sentences her to suffer LIFE imprisonment
and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) pesos;
2. In Criminal
Case No. 02-3171, the Court finds [appellant] LORIE VILLAHERMOSA y LECO GUILTY of the charge for violation
of [Section] 11, [Article] II, [Republic Act No.] 9165 and sentences her to suffer the indeterminate
sentence of Twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to Fourteen (14) years
and (1) day as maximum and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand (P300,000.00);
3. In Criminal
Case No. 02-3172, the Court finds [appellant] LORIE VILLAHERMOSA y LECO GUILTY of the charge for violation
of [Section] 12, [Article] II, [Republic Act No.] 9165 and sentences her to suffer the indeterminate
sentence of Six (6) months [and] one (1) day as minimum to Four (4) years as
maximum and to pay a fine of Ten Thousan (sic) (P10,000.00) pesos.
In all cases, the period during which the [appellant] was under detention shall be considered in her favor pursuant to existing rules.
The Branch Clerk of Court is directed to transmit to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) the zero point zero six gram (0.06), zero point zero three (0.03), zero point fifty four (0.54), zero point zero two (0.02) gram, zero point zero five (0.05) gram, zero point zero three gram (0.03), traces and zero point zero three (0.03) gram or a combined weight of zero point seventy six gram (0.76) of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, one (1) improvised glass tooter, five (5) strips of aluminum foil, fourteen (14) pieces of transparent plastic sachets and three (3) pieces of disposable lighters subject matter of Criminal Cases Nos. 02-3170, 02-3171, 02-3172 for said agencys appropriate disposition.[39] [Emphasis supplied].
Aggrieved,
appellant appealed the aforesaid
In her brief, appellants lone
assignment of error was: the trial court
gravely erred in convicting the [appellant] of the crimes charged
notwithstanding the failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.[41]
After a thorough study of the
records, the Court of Appeals rendered its assailed Decision dated
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the
Appellant
appealed to this Court contending that the trial court gravely erred in giving
credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, i.e., as to when they received the information regarding the
alleged selling of shabu inside the Manila
South Cemetery and whether surveillance was conducted prior to the actual
buy-bust operation against appellant, which are replete with material
inconsistencies and discrepancies. As
such, their testimonies should not be given any weight or credit.
Appellant further argues that the pieces
of evidence obtained from her were planted and this was bolstered by the fact
that when she was brought to an office she was forced to urinate or gave urine
samples.
Appellant finally asserts that she
was denied the right to counsel during her investigation at the barangay hall, which is in clear
violation of the provisions of Republic Act No. 7438.[43]
This Court finds no merit in appellants
contentions.
Essentially, in a prosecution for
illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu
in this case, the following elements must concur: (1) the identity of the buyer and the
seller, the object and the consideration of the sale; and (2) the delivery of
the thing sold and the payment therefor.[44] The commission of the offense of illegal sale
of prohibited drugs requires merely the consummation of the selling transaction,
which happens the moment the
buyer receives the drug from the seller.[45] Thus, what
is material to a prosecution for
illegal sale of dangerous drugs is proof that the illicit transaction took
place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.[46] Such proof is present in this case.
Silverio, the poseur-buyer, positively identified appellant,[47]
who was caught in flagrante delicto,
to be the same person whom he saw and approached beside a store inside the P400.00. Such
white crystalline substance contained inside the two (2) small plastic sachets
handed to Silverio by appellant was confirmed to be methamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu per Chemistry
Report No. D-599-02 dated P100 peso bills in the
total amount of P400.00 with markings ASSJR on the right collar of
former President Manuel A. Roxas.[48]
Furthermore, the testimony of
Silverio clearly established in detail how his transaction with appellant came
about commencing from the moment he approached appellant and expressed his
intention of buying the goods appellant was selling, i.e., shabu, until the
time appellant handed him the two (2) small plastic sachets containing white
crystalline substance, which upon examination yielded positive results to the
presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, and in exchange to that he handed appellant four (4) pieces
of P100.00 peso bills marked money amounting to P400.00 that
consummated the sale transaction between him and appellant.
Beyond cavil, the prosecution clearly
established beyond reasonable doubt appellants guilt for the offense of
illegal sale of shabu, a dangerous
drug, in violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.
In a
prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, e.g., shabu, on the other
hand, it must be shown that: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or an
object identified to be a prohibited or a regulated drug; (2) such possession
is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed
the said drug. These circumstances of illegal
possession are obtaining in the present case.[49]
The aforesaid elements
were undeniably substantiated by the prosecution. Incident to her lawful arrest resulting from
the buy-bust operation, appellant was further found to have in her possession six
(6) more small plastic sachets of shabu
with a total weight of 0.67 gram, which were the same kind of dangerous drug she
was caught selling in flagrante delicto. The said six (6) small plastic sachets of shabu were similarly presented in court,
which Silverio and PO2 Tizon both identified to be the same objects recovered
from appellant while she was being frisked by PO2 Tizon on the occasion of her arrest
for illegally selling shabu.
In
addition, the record is bereft of any evidence to show that appellant had the legal
authority to possess the six (6) small plastic sachets of shabu recovered from her. It
has been jurisprudentially settled that possession of dangerous drugs
constitutes prima facie evidence of
knowledge or animus possidendi
sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of a satisfactory explanation
of such possession. Hence, the burden of
evidence is shifted to the accused to explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi.[50] In this case, appellant miserably failed to
explain her absence of knowledge or animus
possidendi of the shabu recovered
from her.
Thus,
appellants guilt for the crime of illegal possession of shabu, a dangerous drug, in clear violation of Section 11, Article
II of Republic Act No. 9165, has also been duly proven by the prosecution
beyond reasonable doubt.
In
the same vein, it cannot be denied that on the occasion of her arrest for
having been caught in flagrante delicto
selling shabu, a plastic bag was also
recovered in her possession containing the following drug paraphernalia, to
wit: 14 pieces of unused transparent plastic sachets, three disposable
lighters, an improvised tooter and
five strips of aluminum foil. Possession
of the same was in clear violation of Section 12, Article II of Republic Act
No. 9165.
It bears stressing that violation of
Section 12, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 was already consummated the
moment appellant was found in possession of the said articles without the necessary
license or prescription. What is primordial is the proof of the
illegal drugs and paraphernalia recovered from the petitioner.[51]
Along with the charges against her, supported
by the proof of the prosecution, all that appellant could offer was the defense
of bare denial. Time and again, this
Court held that the defense of denial, like alibi,
has been invariably viewed by the courts with disfavor for it can just as
easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in most cases
involving violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.
To merit consideration, it has to be substantiated by clear and
convincing evidence, which appellant failed to do.[52]
As regards appellants contention
that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly PO2 Tizon and
P/Sr. Insp. Walin, should not be given any weight or credit since their
testimonies were replete with inconsistencies, this Court finds the same to be
not well-founded.
The inconsistencies referred to by
appellant in the testimonies of PO2 Tizon and P/Sr. Insp. Walin, were: (1) as
to when they received the information regarding the alleged selling of shabu by appellant inside the Manila
South Cemetery; and (2) whether surveillance was conducted prior to the actual
buy-bust operation against appellant.
PO2 Tizon testified that they
received the information regarding appellants illegal activity, i.e., selling of shabu inside the
As the Court of Appeals had observed,
the aforesaid inconsistencies are more apparent than real. Such inconsistencies are merely trivial,
minor and immaterial. They refer only to
irrelevant and collateral matters, which have nothing to do with the elements of
the crime.[53] It has been established that where the inconsistency is not an
essential element of the crime, such inconsistency is insignificant and cannot
have any bearing on the essential fact testified to. Inconsistencies
and discrepancies in the testimony
referring to minor details and not upon the basic aspect of the crime do not diminish the witnesses credibility.[54] More
so, an inconsistency, which has nothing to do with the elements of a crime, is
not a ground to reverse a conviction.[55]
Moreover, there is no requirement
that prior surveillance should be conducted before a buy-bust operation can be
undertaken. Prior surveillance is not a prerequisite for the validity of an
entrapment or a buy-bust operation, there being no fixed or textbook method
for conducting one.[56] It is enough that the elements of the crime
are proven by credible witnesses and other pieces of evidence.[57]
As such, though there are
inconsistencies or discrepancies in the testimonies of P/Sr. Insp. Walin and
that of PO2 Tizon on the matter of when they received the information
concerning appellants illegal activity inside the Manila South Cemetery, as
well as the existence of a prior surveillance on her, the same cannot affect
the credibility of their testimonies since those inconsistencies have nothing
to do with the elements of any of the offense charged against appellant. Despite the presence of those
inconsistencies, the fact still remains that there was indeed, a consummated
sale of illegal drugs, i.e., shabu,
between appellant and Silverio, the poseur-buyer,
for which appellant was arrested. And,
on the occasion of appellants arrest thereof, she was similarly found to have
been in possession of six (6) more small plastic sachets of shabu, as well as drug paraphernalia. To reiterate, all the elements of illegal
sale of shabu, illegal possession of shabu and illegal possession of drug
paraphernalia had been satisfactorily proven by the prosecution. Thus, the inconsistencies pointed to by
appellant cannot and will not in any way discredit the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses above-mentioned.
The same cannot cause her acquittal of the charges against her.
Besides, the rule has been settled that
the findings and conclusion of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses
are entitled to great respect because the trial courts have the advantage of
observing the demeanor of witnesses as they testify. This
Court will not usually disturb said findings of the trial court in assessing
the credibility of the witnesses, unless some facts or circumstances of weight
and influence have been overlooked or the significance of which has been
misinterpreted by the trial court. This
arises from the fact that the lower courts are in a better position to decide
the question, having heard the witnesses themselves 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 as in
this case.[58]
Moreover, it may be noted that there
is nothing on record to indicate that the prosecution witnesses harbored ill-motives
against appellant. In several drug
cases, this Court has consistently held that in the absence of proof to the
contrary, law enforcers are presumed to have regularly performed their duty.[59]
In appellants effort to exonerate
herself from the charges against her, she similarly claimed that the pieces of
evidence obtained from her were planted, bolstered by the fact that when she
was brought to an office she was forced to urinate or gave urine samples. This assertion cannot be accepted.
Noticeably, appellants testimony
remained uncorroborated. She never
adduced any evidence to support her self-serving allegation. Indeed, as noted by the Court of Appeals in
its decision, the result of appellants urine samples was not even considered
by the trial court in determining her guilt for violation of the provisions of
Republic Act No. 9165. Otherwise stated,
even without her urine samples, she can still be convicted of the charges
against her, i.e., illegal sale of shabu (violation of Section 5, Article
II of Republic Act No. 9165), illegal possession of shabu (violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No.
9165) and illegal possession of drug paraphernalia (violation of Section 12,
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165).
The result of appellants urine samples is not an element of any of the
offense charged against her. As such,
the result of the same is not necessary for her conviction.
Appellants final assertion that she
was denied the right to counsel during her investigation at the barangay hall, which is in violation of
the provisions of Republic Act No. 7438 deserves scant consideration. Here, we quote with conformity appellate
courts pronouncement on this matter:
Likewise, appellants late assertion that she was allegedly denied the right to counsel during the time when she was inside the barangay hall is not an issue in the present case. As correctly pointed by the People, no extrajudicial statement was taken from her, hence her right to counsel was not violated. The trial court relied on the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and not on any extrajudicial statement in the determination of appellants culpability of the charges against her.[60] [Emphasis supplied].
This Court will now
determine the imposable penalties upon appellant.
Section 5, Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165 explicitly provides the penalty for the illegal sale of
dangerous drugs, like shabu, viz.:
SEC.
5.
It is clear from the
afore-quoted provision of law that the sale of any dangerous drug, like shabu, notwithstanding its quantity and
purity, carries with it the penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine
ranging from P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00.[61] In light, however, of the effectivity of Republic
Act No. 9346, otherwise known as An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death
Penalty in the
Illegal possession of
dangerous drugs, like shabu, on the
other hand, is penalized under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165,
to wit:
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:
(1) x x x
(2) 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.
[Emphasis supplied].
The afore-quoted
provision unequivocally states that illegal possession of less than five grams
of shabu, a dangerous drug, is
penalized with imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day to 20 years and a fine
ranging from P300,000.00 to P400,000.00.[63]
The evidence adduced by
the prosecution in Criminal Case No. 02-3171 established beyond reasonable
doubt that appellant, without any legal authority, had in his possession 0.67
grams of shabu or less than five
grams thereof.
Applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum period of the imposable penalty shall
not fall below the minimum period set by the law; the maximum period shall not
exceed the maximum period allowed under the law.[64] With this, the penalty of 12 years and 1 day
to 14 years and 1 day and fine of P300,000.00 imposed by the trial court
and affirmed by the appellate court is proper.
The penalty for illegal
possession of drug paraphernalia is provided for under Section 12, Article II
of Republic Act No. 9165, thus:
SEC 12. Possession
of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs.
The penalty of imprisonment ranging
from six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and a fine ranging from
Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) to Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) shall be
imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess or have
under his/her control any equipment, instrument, apparatus and other
paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting,
ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body: Provided, That in the case of medical
practitioners and various professionals who are required to carry such
equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia in the practice of
their profession, the Board shall prescribe the necessary implementing
guidelines thereof. [Emphasis supplied].
On the basis of the foregoing
provision, possession of drug paraphernalia without any authority is punishable
by imprisonment ranging from 6 months and 1 day to 4 years and a fine of P10,000.00
to P50,000.00.
Again, applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty of 6 months and 1 day to 4 years and a
fine of P10,000.00 imposed upon appellant by both lower courts in
Criminal Case No. 02-3172 is likewise correct.
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No.
02598 dated
SO ORDERED.
|
|
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
Associate Justice |
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Courts Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
* Per Special Order No. 994, Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta is designated as Additional Member of the First Division in place of Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo who is on official leave.
[1] Penned
by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison with Associate Justices Lucenito N.
Tagle and Monina Arevalo Zenarosa, concurring.
Rollo, pp. 2-13.
[2] Penned
by Pairing Judge Delia H. Panganiban. CA
rollo, pp. 20-31.
[3] SEC. 5.
[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:
(1) x x x
(2) 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] SEC 12.
Possession of Equipment,
Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs.
The penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) months and one (1) day to four
(4) years and a fine ranging from Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) to Fifty
thousand pesos (P50,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless
authorized by law, shall possess or have under his/her control any equipment,
instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking,
consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous
drug into the body: Provided, That in
the case of medical practitioners and various professionals who are required to
carry such equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia in the
practice of their profession, the Board shall prescribe the necessary
implementing guidelines thereof.
The possession of such
equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia fit or intended for
any of the purposes enumerated in the preceding paragraph shall be prima facie evidence that the possessor
has smoked, consumed, administered to himself/herself, injected, ingested or
used a dangerous drug and shall be presumed to have violated Section 15 of this Act.
[6] CA
rollo, pp. 10-12.
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10] As
evidenced by a Certificate of Arraignment dated
[11] RTC
Order dated
[12] Testimony
of PO2 Rolando L. Tizon, TSN, 1 February 2005, p. 6 and TSN, 13 April 2005, p.
26.
[13] Testimony
of Amado Silverio, TSN,
[14] Testimony
of PO2 Rolando L. Tizon, TSN, 1 February 2005, p. 6 and TSN, 13 April 2005, p.
26.
[15] Testimony
of Amado Silverio, TSN, 3 April 2003, p. 4 and TSN, 11 March 2004, p. 14.
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19] With
Serial Nos. CX839476, DF 922642, DM524105 and HB182496 and have been
respectively marked as Exhibits U, V, W and X. Records, p. 125.
[20] Testimony
of Amado Silverio, TSN, 3 April 2003, p. 4 and pp. 8-9; Testimony of PO2
Rolando L. Tizon, TSN, 13 April 2005, p. 11; Testimony of P/Sr. Insp. Walin.
TSN,
[21]
[22]
[23] Testimony
of Amado Silverio, TSN,
[24]
[25] Testimony
of Amado Silverio, id. at 7; Testimony of PO2 Rolando L. Tizon, id. at 7;
Testimony of PO2 Rolando L. Tizon, TSN, 11 March 2004, pp. 4-7; Testimony of
P/Sr. Insp. Helson B. Walin, id. at 25.
[26] As
evidenced by an Inventory of the Property Seized Report dated
[27] Testimony
of Amado Silverio, TSN, 11 March 2004, pp. 11-13 and 22; Testimony of PO2
Rolando L. Tizon, TSN, 13 April 2005, p. 33; Testimony of P/Sr. Insp. Helson B.
Walin, 18 January 2006, p. 26.
[28] As
evidenced by Request for Drug Test dated
[29] As
evidenced by Request for Medical/Physical Examination dated
[30] As
evidenced by Request for Laboratory Examination dated
[31] Testimony
of Amado Silverio, TSN, 3 April 2003, p. 7 and TSN, 11 March 2004, p. 10;
Testimony of PO2 Rolando L. Tizon, TSN, 13 April 2005, p. 8; Testimony of P/Sr.
Insp. Helson B. Walin, TSN, 18 January 2006, p. 31
[32] As
evidenced by Chemistry Report No. DT-341-02 dated
[33] As
evidenced by Physical Examination Report dated
[34] As
evidenced by Chemistry Report No. D-599-02 dated
[35] Testimony
of PO2 Rolando L. Tizon, TSN,
[36] Testimony
of appellant Lorie Villahermosa, TSN,
[37]
[38]
[39] CA
rollo, pp. 30-31.
[40]
[41] Brief
for the Accused-Appellant.
[42] Rollo, p. 12.
[43] An Act Defining Certain Rights of Person
Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial Investigation as well as the Duties of
the Arresting, Detaining and Investigating Officers, and Providing Penalties
for Violations Thereof. This was
approved on
[44] People v. Uy, 392 Phil. 773, 783 (2000).
[45] People v. Julian-Fernandez, 423 Phil.
895, 911-912 (2001); People v. Bandang,
G.R. No. 151314,
[46] People v. Astudillo, 440 Phil. 203, 224
(2002); People v.
[47] Testimony
of Amado Silverio, TSN,
[48]
[49] People v.
[50] People v. Pendatun, 478 Phil. 201, 212 (2004).
[51] Arcilla v. Court of Appeals, 463 Phil.
914, 926 (2003).
[52] People v. Libnao, 443 Phil. 506, 520
(2003).
[53] People v. Ignas, 458 Phil. 965, 987-988
(2003).
[54] People v. Sabardan, G.R. No. 132135, 21
May 2004, 429 SCRA 9, 19 citing People v.
Monieva, G.R. No. 123912, 8 June 2000, 333 SCRA 244, 252.
[55] People v. Ignas, supra note 53 at
988.
[56] People v. Eugenio, 443 Phil. 411,
422-423 (2003).
[57]
[58] People v. Campomanes, G.R. No. 187741, 9
August 2010, 627 SCRA 494, 504.
[59] People v. Sy Bing Yok, 368 Phil. 326,
340 (1999).
[60] Rollo, p. 12.
[61] People v. Sembrano, G.R. No. 185848, 16
August 2010, 628 SCRA 328, 343-344 citing People v. Serrano, G.R. No. 179038, 6 May 2010, 620 SCRA 327, 345.
[62] People v. Sembrano, id. at 344.
[63]
[64]