FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 230067. November 20, 2017.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.CRESCENTE PALENCIA Y BUMAGAT, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 20, 2017, which reads as follows: AScHCD
"G.R. No. 230067 (People of the Philippines v. Crescente Palencia y Bumagat). — Before this Court is an appeal filed by accused-appellant Crescente Palencia y Bumagat (Palencia) assailing the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated 3 November 2016 in CA-G.R. CR H.C. No. 07706. The CA affirmed the Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 19, Bangui, Ilocos Norte (RTC), in Criminal Case No. 2139-19 finding Palencia guilty of violating Sec. 5, Art. II of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9165. 3
The following Information was filed with the RTC against accused-appellant:
That on or about June 6, 2013 at 4:20 in the afternoon at Barangay Ablan, municipality of Burgos, province of Ilocos Norte, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously and knowingly sell one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as "shabu," a dangerous drug, weighing 0.0708 gram worth P500.00 to a police poseur-buyer, without the necessary license or authority from the appropriate government agency of authority to do so.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty. 5
The RTC held that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing, with moral certainty, all the elements of the illegal sale of shabu. It relied on the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses as opposed to the defense of frame-up raised by accused-appellant. The trial court further held that the chain of custody of the drug had been clearly established. It stated that there was no showing of any break in the chain and, ultimately, the integrity of the seized item was preserved. The dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, the court finds the accused Crescente B. Palencia GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and hereby imposes upon him the penalty of life imprisonment plus a fine of Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), and to pay the costs.
The methamphetamine hydrochloride subject of this case is hereby declared forfeited in favour of the government, to be destroyed in accordance with the aforesaid law. The clerk of court is directed to coordinate with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for this purpose.
SO ORDERED. 6
The CA affirmed the Decision of the RTC, with the modification that accused-appellant was considered to be not eligible for parole. 7
On 13 December 2016, accused-appellant filed a Notice of Appeal 8 before the CA, which gave the appeal due course. Consequently, this Court issued a Resolution 9 requiring the Bureau of Corrections to confirm the confinement of accused-appellant to prison.
Pending appeal, the Department of Justice Bureau of Corrections Officer-in-Charge Rey M. Raagas informed the Court on 22 August 2017 that accused-appellant had died on 4 January 2017. 10 His death was evidenced by (a) the Certification 11 issued by Rehabilitation Operations Division Officer-in-Charge Jose Ramon C. Padua; (b) the Death Report 12 signed by New Bilibid Prison Hospital Medical Specialist 1 Ma. Cecilia V. Villanueva, MD; and (c) accused-appellant's Certificate of Death. 13
The criminal liability of accused-appellant was effectively extinguished by his death pending appeal of his conviction.
Under the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is totally extinguished by the death of the convict. 14 Further, considering that a violation of R.A. 9165 does not entail any civil liability, no civil liability needs to be extinguished. 15
WHEREFORE, in view of the death of accused-appellant Crescente Palencia y Bumagat on 4 January 2017, his appeal from the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 3 November 2016 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 07706 is hereby DISMISSED for being MOOT and ACADEMIC.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-19; penned by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Danton Q. Bueser and Renato C. Francisco.
2. CA rollo, pp 40-57; dated 13 July 2015; penned by Presiding Judge Rosemarie V. Ramos.
3. Entitled "An Act Instituting the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
4. CA rollo, p. 40.
5.Rollo, p. 3.
6. CA rollo, p. 57.
7.Rollo, p. 19.
8. CA rollo, pp. 16-17.
9.Rollo, pp. 20-21.
10.Id. at 25.
11.Id. at 26.
12.Id. at 27.
13.Id. at 34.
14. THE REVISED PENAL CODE, Art. 89 (1).
15.People v. Morales y Lam, G.R. No. 206832, 21 January 2015, 747 SCRA 490.