FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 250935. June 30, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. RAQUEL DALUMPINES y SISON a.k.a. "RAQUEL SISON y REYES", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 30, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 250935 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee v. RAQUEL DALUMPINES y SISON a.k.a. "Raquel Sison y Reyes," accused-appellant). — Assailed in this ordinary appeal is the Decision 1 dated January 11, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10217, which affirmed with modification the Consolidated Decision 2 dated December 1, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Marikina City, Branch 193 in Criminal Case Nos. 2014-4552-D-MK and 2014-4553-D-MK finding Raquel Dalumpines y Sison (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, respectively.
The Facts
This case stemmed from two Informations dated December 1, 2014 filed before the RTC, charging accused-appellant with violation of Sections 5 and 11 of R.A. No. 9165, the accusatory portion of each of the Information reads:
Criminal Case No. 2014-4552-D-MK
That on or about the 28th day of November 2014 in the City of Marikina, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law, did then and there, willfully, feloniously, and knowingly sold to one PO2 Ronnie Agsawa, a poseur-buyer one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.43 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Criminal Case No. 2014-4553-D-MK
That on or about the 28th day of November 2014 in the City of Marikina, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law, to possess any dangerous drugs, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in her possession, direct custody and control eleven (11) small plastic sachets containing 1.40 grams, 0.20 gram, 0.43 gram, 0.15 gram, 0.15 gram, 0.15 gram, 0.10 gram, 0.10 gram and 0.15 gram, respectively, all in the total weight of 2.83 grams of white crystalline substance positive to the test for the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, which is a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 3
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution presented Police Officer 3 Ronnel Agsawa (PO3 Agsawa) as one of its witnesses. With respect to the testimonies of the following witnesses, the prosecution and defense stipulated on their subject matter: (1) Police Chief Inspector/Forensic Chemist Margarita M. Libres (PCI Libres); and (2) PO3 Jayson Rael. 4
In particular, the prosecution and defense stipulated on the following matters with respect to the testimony of PCI Libres: (1) That PCI Libres is the same Police Chief Inspector Forensic Chemist Margarita M. Libres of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Eastern Police District Crime Laboratory with office at Marikina Sports Complex, Barangay Sta. Elena, Marikina City; (2) That on November 28, 2014 she received a Request for Laboratory Examination on Seized Evidence from the Director of PNP Crime Laboratory Office, Sta. Elena, Marikina City for the examination of the items allegedly confiscated from the accused-appellant; (3) that PCI Libres received the sealed and marked specimen retrieved from accused-appellant; (4) that PCI Libres conducted an examination of the specimen received by her; (5) that after examination, the substance contained in the specimen gave a positive result to the test for the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride; (6) That the results were reduced into writing in the Physical Science Report No. MCSO-D-151-14; (7) that PCI Libres would be able to identify the specimen submitted to her by PO3 Agsawa and that they are the same specimen subject of her examination. 5
According to the prosecution, at around 3:00 in the afternoon of November 28, 2014, while PO3 Agsawa, and other members of the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Group (SAID-SOGT)-Marikina City were at their office, confidential informant (CI) arrived and informed them that the accused-appellant, who was No. 7 on the list of the Top Ten Drug Personalities, had returned to her house at Bonanza Street, Horse Shoe Subdivision, Barangay Fortune, Marikina City, and the she was, once again engaged in the sale of illegal drugs. 6
Based on the report of the CI, Police Inspector Jerry Flores (PI Flores) organized a team to conduct a buy-bust operation, and the former was designated as the team leader, while PO3 Agsawa was designated as the poseur-buyer while the rest of the team would be serving as back-up personnel. For purposes of the buy-bust operation, PO3 Agsawa was handed a P1,000.00 bill as buy-bust money, which was marked with his initials "R" and "A". Moreover, a Pre-operational report was likewise prepared and the operation was coordinated with the Philippine Drugs Enforcement Agency. After their briefing, the team proceeded to the target area and arrived thereat at around 7:00 in the evening. 7
Thereafter, the CI and PO3 Agsawa headed to the house of accused-appellant while the remaining team members positioned themselves strategically. The CI then knocked on the door of accused-appellant's house and called her out. Accused-appellant opened the door and invited them both inside. The CI introduced PO3 Agsawa as a "scorer of shabu." Accused-appellant asked how much PO3 Agsawa was buying and the latter replied that he wanted to purchase a thousand-peso worth of shabu. PO3 handed the marked bill to accused-appellant, and the latter took out a plastic sachet from a black coin purse and handed it to PO3 Agsawa, which he pocketed. It was at this point that PO3 Agsawa made a missed call to their team leader, PI Flores, which was the pre-arranged signal. The team then rushed to accused-appellant's house and introduced themselves as police officers and proceeded to arrest accused-appellant. A search of accused-appellant's person yielded a blue pouch which contained the marked buy-bust money, as well as a black coin purse, which contained nine heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets with white crystalline substance, as well as two opened transparent plastic sachets. 8
Immediately after the arrest, PO3 Agsawa proceeded to mark the seized items while the team was still inside the house of accused-appellant. PO3 Agsawa likewise proceeded to make an inventory of the confiscated items in the presence of the following individuals: (1) Barangay Kagawad Romeo Silva (Kagawad Silva); (2) Councilor Ronnie Acuna (Councilor Acuna); (3) Marikina Vice-Mayor Jose Fabian Cadiz (Vice-Mayor Cadiz); and (4) a member of the media, Cesar Barquilla (Barquilla). The foregoing witnesses likewise affixed their signature on the Inventory of Evidence prepared by PO3 Agsawa. 9
On the same day, the seized items, together with the Letter Request for Laboratory examination and Chain of Custody Form was delivered by PO3 Agsawa to the PNP Eastern Police District, Criminal Laboratory Office, Marikina City. The specimen, as well as the Letter Request were received by PCI Libres, the forensic chemist. 10
The examination of the delivered transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance conducted by PCI Libres yielded positive result for the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug. The result was reflected in Physical Science Report No. MCSO-D-151-14. 11
Version of the Defense
The defense presented accused-appellant and her daughter, Darlene Aika Dalumpines as its witnesses, whose testimonies tended to establish accused-appellant's innocence, as follows:
According to the defense, accused-appellant was at her neighbor's house signing insurance documents when armed men in civilian clothes came and forced her to go with them. Accused-appellant said the men brought her to her house, which she saw was, at the time, in disarray. Accused-appellant's store was also similarly in shambles. When she saw her children crying, she embraced them and they all just sat in a corner. Accused-appellant then alleged that after a while, she was given a chair to sit on. She was asked if she owned the "bato" which were on the table nearby. Accused-appellant refused to hold the "bato" even as she was asked to do so and did not admit to anything and just sat silently. 12
Thereafter, the men took accused-appellant to SOCO, then to the Amang-Rodriguez Hospital, after which she was brought to the SAID-SOGT, Police Station, Marikina City. Accused-appellant alleges that she was again asked to confess to her ownership of the "bato" which she did not. She was then jailed. 13
The Ruling of the RTC
In a Consolidated Decision dated December 1, 2017 the RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of shabu in violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and of illegal possession of shabu in violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, viz.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
In Criminal Case No. 2014-4552-D-MK, accused RAQUEL DALUMPINES y SISON a.k.a. RAQUEL SISON y REYES, is hereby found GUILTY of the crime of Violation of Section 5 of Article II of R.A. 9165, (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). She is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and the payment of a fine in the amount of five hundred thousand (PhP500,000.00) pesos.
In Criminal Case No. 2014-4553-D-MK, accused RAQUEL DALUMPINES y SISON a.k.a. RAQUEL SISON y REYES, is hereby found GUILTY of the crime of Violation of Section 11 of Article II of R.A. 9165, (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).
Considering that the amount of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride did not exceed five (5) grams, in accordance with paragraph No. 3, Section 11, R.A. No. 9165, accused RAQUEL DALUMPINES y SISON a.k.a. RAQUEL SISON y REYES, is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine in the amount of three hundred thousand (Php300,000.00) pesos.
The sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) confiscated from accused RAQUEL DALUMPINES y SISON a.k.a. RAQUEL SISON y REYES, are forfeited in favor of the government and ordered disposed of in accordance with law.
SO ORDERED. 14
Aggrieved, accused-appellant filed a Notice of Appeal 15 which was granted in due course by the RTC, 16 thus, the Consolidated Decision and accused-appellant's conviction was elevated to the CA.
The Ruling of the CA
In a Decision dated January 11, 2019 the CA affirmed the RTC's Consolidated Decision, likewise finding that all the elements of both charges were present, while modifying the penalty for Criminal Case No. 2014-4553-D-MK:
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The assailed Consolidated Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Marikina City, Branch 193 in Criminal Case No. 2014-4552-D-MK and in Criminal Case No. 2014-4553-D-MK is AFFIRMED with the modification that in Criminal Case No. 2014-4553-D-MK, the accused is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to sixteen (16) years as maximum and a fine of Php300,000.00. All other aspects of the Consolidated Decision are affirmed.
SO ORDERED. 17
The CA ratiocinated that the trial court correctly convicted the accused-appellant as the prosecution was able to sufficiently prove the essential elements of both illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Also, the CA was convinced that the prosecution had properly established the unbroken chain of custody resulting in the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. 18
Thereafter, accused-appellant filed his Notice of Appeal. 19 On January 16, 2020, the CA elevated to this Court the records of this case, 20 pursuant to its Resolution 21 dated February 27, 2019 which gave due course to the Notice of Appeal.
In the Resolution 22 dated March 2, 2020, this Court noted the records of the case forwarded by the CA and the parties were then ordered to file their respective supplemental briefs, should they so desire, within 30 days from notice. 23
On August 24, 2020, accused-appellant filed a Manifestation in Lieu of a Supplemental Brief 24 stating that she would no longer file a supplemental brief. A similar Manifestation (In lieu of Supplemental Brief) 25 dated September 22, 2020 was made by the Office of the Solicitor General on behalf of the People of the Philippines.
After evaluating the records of this case, this Court resolves to dismiss the appeal as accused-appellant failed to show any reversible error in the assailed CA Decision dated January 11, 2019 which would warrant the exercise of this Court's appellate jurisdiction.
Discussion
After an exhaustive examination of the records, this Court finds no reversible error in the CAs' appreciation of the evidence on record and its conclusions of law which sustained the conviction of accused-appellant.
Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs
To secure a conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the prosecution must establish the following elements:
(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and its consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is important is that the sale transaction of drugs actually took place and that the object of the transaction is properly presented as evidence in court and is shown to be the same drugs seized from the accused. 26
In the instant case, the prosecution was able to establish beyond reasonable doubts the presence of the foregoing elements.
First. The prosecution through the affirmative testimony of PO3 Agsawa, the poseur-buyer, positively identified accused-appellant as the seller, as well as the marked buy-bust money and illegal drugs seized from accused-appellant. PO3 Agsawa identified the marked money in the amount of P1,000.00 which was handed to accused in exchange for one sachet of shabu weighing .43 grams. 27 The prosecution and the defense stipulated that after PCI Libres of the PNP Eastern Police District, Criminal Laboratory Office, Marikina City conducted chemical evaluation of the marked items seized from accused-appellant, it was found positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu. 28Second. The prosecution was likewise able to establish through the testimony of PO3 Agsawa that an actual sale transaction of illegal drug took place. 29
Illegal Possession of Dangerous
For illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be established: (1) the accused was in possession of dangerous drugs; (2) such possession was not authorized by law; and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of dangerous drugs. 30
The foregoing elements are similarly present in the instant case.
Accused-appellant was caught inflagrante delicto in the possession of nine heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets, as well as two opened transparent plastic sachets, both containing white crystalline substance which was subsequently tested and yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu, without showing any proof that she was duly authorized by law to possess the same. PO3 Agsawa testified that he conducted a body search incident to the lawful arrest of accused-appellant, and found on her person a blue pouch which contained the marked buy-bust money, as well as a total of 11 plastic sachets. The confiscated items were identified in court by PO3 Agsawa as the items seized from the person of accused-appellant during the body search. In addition, the prosecution and the defense stipulated that after PCI Libres of the PNP Eastern Police District, Criminal Laboratory Office, Marikina City conducted chemical evaluation of the contents of the 11 plastic sachets seized from accused-appellant, it was found positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu. 31
Possession of the dangerous drug was with the knowledge of the accused or that animus possidendi existed together with the possession or control of the dangerous drug. Mere possession of a regulated drug per se constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused absent a satisfactory explanation of such possession; the onus probandi is shifted to the accused, to explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi. 32
In this case, the positive, clear and credible testimony of the prosecution's witnesses could not be negated by accused-appellant's self-serving denial.
The Integrity of the Chain of
In prosecuting both illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the identity of the dangerous drug must be established with moral certainty. Apart from showing that the elements of possession or sale are present, the fact that the dangerous drug illegally possessed and sold is the same drug offered in court as exhibit must likewise be established with the same degree of certitude as that needed to sustain a guilty verdict. 33 Simply, in cases of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the dangerous drug seized from the accused constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense 34 and therefore must be established beyond reasonable doubt. 35
As a general rule, the prosecution must endeavor to establish four links in the chain of custody of the confiscated item: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court. 36
In the instant case, as correctly ruled by the CA, the prosecution was able to establish the integrity of the corpus delicti and the unbroken chain of custody. Aptly noting the findings of the trial court and the testimonies of the prosecution.
First Link: Marking of the
Crucial in proving the chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or other related items immediately after they have been seized from the accused. 37 Nevertheless, there are cases when the chain of custody rule is relaxed such as when the marking of the seized items is allowed to be undertaken at the police station rather than at the place of arrest for as long as it is done in the presence of the accused in illegal drugs cases. 38
Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, 39 the applicable law at the time of the commission of the alleged crime, established certain procedural safeguards which the police officers must strictly follow to preserve and ensure the identity and integrity of the substance seized:
SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items 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, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof:Provided, That the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures: Provided, finally, That noncompliance of these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items. (Emphasis supplied)
Under the said section, the apprehending team shall, among others, immediately after seizure and confiscation conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, and in addition, in the presence of the following: (1) any elected public official; and (2) a representative from the media; or (3) a representative from the Department of Justice; who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy of the same, and the seized drugs must be turned over to the PNP Crime Laboratory within 24 hours from confiscation for examination.
In this case, as testified to by PO3 Agsawa, the plastic sachets that were confiscated from accused-appellant during the buy-bust operation was immediately marked at the place where the arrest was made. The formal inventory of the seized items was likewise prepared and signed at the place of arrest in the presence of accused-appellant, as well as the following individuals: (1) Kagawad Silva; (2) Councilor Acuna; (3) Vice-Mayor Cadiz; and (4) a member of the media, Barquilla. 40
Clearly, the first link was sufficiently established by the prosecution, as well as the compliance with the safeguards enumerated under Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640.
Second Link: Turnover of the
As testified to by PO3 Agsawa, he was the poseur-buyer, who took possession of the seized shabu. Thereafter, it was likewise PO3 Agsawa who prepared and signed the Request for the Laboratory Examination and Drug Test and who turned the seized substance over to PCI Libres of the PNP Eastern Police District, Criminal Laboratory Office, Marikina City for testing. In other words, the seized substance did not change hands and thus, there was no break in the 2nd link. 41
Third Link: Turnover by the
From the investigating officer, the illegal drug is delivered to the forensic chemist. Once the seized drugs arrive at the forensic laboratory, it will be the laboratory technician who will test and verify the nature of the substance. 42
In this case, PO3 Agsawa brought the seized items to the PNP Eastern Police District, Criminal Laboratory Office, Marikina City for examination. Moreover, the prosecution and the defense stipulated that PCI Libres of the PNP Eastern Police District, Criminal Laboratory Office, Marikina City received the Letter Request for Examination and the marked seized items from PO3 Agsawa and that she conducted chemical evaluation of its contents. 43
Fourth Link: Turnover of the
The last link involves the submission of the seized drugs by the forensic chemist to the court when presented as evidence in the criminal case. 44
In the instant case, the corpus delicti were brought by PCI Libres before the RTC, when she was about to testify. However, before she was called to testify, the prosecution and the defense sought to dispense her testimony and entered into stipulation as to the contents and subject matter of her testimony. Pertinently, the prosecution and the defense stipulated that the forensic chemist, PCI Libres received the seized articles from PO3 Agsawa and that they were sealed, intact and accordingly marked. It was likewise stipulated that PCI Libres denominated the seized articles as Specimens "A" to "L" accordingly and that she conducted a qualitative and quantitative examination of the same, which yielded a positive result to the test for the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride. Moreover, it was likewise stipulated that PCI Libres would be able to identify the specimens being submitted before the RTC as the same specimens submitted to her by PO3 Agsawa and that these are the same specimens she subjected to examination. 45
As observed by the RTC, the parties stipulated on the following facts and marked the seized articles which were identified by PCI Libres:
Thereafter, PCI Margarita M. Libres, Forensic Chemist of the Philippine National Police (PNP) National Headquarters Crime Laboratory Office located Camp Crame, Quezon City, was presented as witness.
However, before she could testify, Asst. City Prosecutor Amiel R. Songco and counsel de parte Atty. Alan D. Mijares, entered into stipulation of facts on lieu of her testimony, that it put to the witness stand, she would testify, as follows:
1. That she is the same Police Chief Inspector Forensic Chemist Margarita M. Libres of the PNP Eastern Police District Crime Laboratory with office at Marikina Sports Complex, Brgy. Sta. Elena, Marikina City;
2. That on 28 November 2014, she received a Request for Laboratory Examination on Seized Evidence from the Director of PNP Crime Laboratory Office, Sta. Elena, Marikina City for the examination of the items allegedly confiscated from accused Raquel Dalumpines y Sison;
3. That she received the following specimens:
a. One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.43 gram of white crystalline substance suspected as shabu marked as "RSD-BB 11/28/14" which was denominated as Specimen "A";
xxx xxx xxx
4. That pursuant to the said laboratory examination request, she conducted an examination on the above-stated specimens A to L;
5. That after a qualitative and quantitative examination conducted by her, the substance contained on the above specimen A to L, gave a positive result to the test for the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug;
6. That the results of her findings with regard to specimens A to L, were reduced into writing under Physical Science Report No. MCSO-D-151-14;
7. That she would be able to identify the specimens submitted as the same specimens submitted to her by PO2 Ronel Agsawa and that the same specimens were the specimens she subjected to examination;
8. That she would be able to identify the documents as the same documents she executed in relation to this case.
xxx xxx xxx
Thereafter, the prosecution marked the following exhibits which were identified by PCI Margarita M. Libres:
xxx xxx xxx
"G" — One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.43 gram of white crystalline substance suspected as shabu marked as "RSD-BB 11/28/14" which was denominated as Specimen A;
"G-1" — The markings on Exhibit "G".
xxx xxx xxx
After having stipulated on the aforementioned and after the preceding exhibits were marked, the court, upon motion of the public prosecutor and joined by the counsel for the accused, dispensed the testimony of prosecution witness PCI Margarita M. Libres. 46 (Emphasis supplied)
We are convinced that the stipulation by the parties sufficiently demonstrated that the forensic chemist, PCI Libres took the precautionary steps required in order to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.
All told, as correctly observed by the CA, the prosecution sufficiently established the crucial links in the chain of custody of the seized items from the time they were first discovered until they were brought for examination.
Accordingly, after evaluating the records of this case, this Court resolves to dismiss the appeal as accused-appellant failed to show any reversible error in the assailed CA Decision promulgated on January 11, 2019 which would warrant the exercise of this Court's appellate jurisdiction.
Penalty
In Criminal Case No. 2014-4552-D-MK, Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, 47 states that the penalty for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00. Accordingly, the trial court, as affirmed by the CA, correctly imposed life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 on accused-appellant.
In Criminal Case No. 2014-4553-D-MK, involving the illegal possession of a dangerous substance, with the total weight of 2.83 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, the penalty imposable under Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 is imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from P300,000.00 to P400,000.00, since the quantity is less than five (5) grams. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum period of the imposable penalty shall not fall below the minimum period set by the law and the maximum period shall not exceed the maximum period allowed under the law. 48 The CA correctly modified the RTC's Consolidated Decision and imposed the penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to sixteen (16) years as maximum, and a fine of P300,000.00. Thus, the penalty imposed by the CA, is within the prescribed range.
WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error committed by the Court of Appeals, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED and the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-21; penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo with Associate Justices Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob and Rafael Antonio M. Santos, concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 46-59; penned by Judge Alice C. Gutierrez.
3.Id. at 46-47.
4.Rollo, p. 5.
5. CA rollo, pp. 48-49.
6.Id. at 52.
7.Id. at 52-53.
8.Rollo, pp. 6-7.
9.Id. at 7.
10.Id.
11.Id.
12.Id. at 8.
13.Id.
14. CA rollo, pp. 58-59.
15.Id. at 10-11.
16.Id. at 12.
17.Rollo, p. 21.
18.Id. at 10-11.
19.Id. at 22-23.
20.Id. at 1.
21.Id. at 25.
22.Id. at 27-28.
23.Id.
24.Id. at 31-33.
25.Id. at 39-41.
26.People v. Hilario, 823 Phil. 580, 594 (2018).
27.Rollo, p. 10.
28.Id. at 15-16.
29.Id. at 10.
30.People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 29 (2017).
31.Rollo, pp. 13-14.
32.People v. Eda, 793 Phil. 885, 898 (2016).
33.People v. Del Mundo, 818 Phil. 575, 584-585 (2017).
34.People v. Ismael, supra note 30 at 29.
35.People v. Morales, 630 Phil. 215, 228 (2010).
36.People v. Breis, 766 Phil. 785, 803 (2015).
37.People v. Hementiza, 807 Phil. 1017, 1030 (2017).
38.People v. Resurrecion, 618 Phil. 520, 532 (2009).
39. An Act to Further Strengthen the Anti-Drug Campaign of the Government, amending for the Purpose Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, Otherwise Known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," approved on July 15, 2014. The crime subject of this case was allegedly committed on November 28, 2014.
40.Rollo, p. 7.
41.Id. at 13-14.
42.People v. Hementiza, supra note 37 at 1035.
43.Rollo, pp. 13-14.
44.People v. Hementiza, supra note 37 at 1037.
45.Rollo, pp. 14-16.
46. CA rollo, pp. 48-52.
47. Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. — 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 sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug x x x.
48. Section 1. Hereafter, in imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by the Revised Penal Code, or its amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the said Code, and the minimum which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense; and if the offense is punished by any other law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same. (As amended by Act No. 4225).