Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 8

8/4/2016

G.R.No.190623

TodayisThursday,August04,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
SECONDDIVISION
G.R.No.190623November17,2014
PEOPLEOFTHEPIDLIPPINES,PlaintiffAppellee,
vs.
ROMMELARAZAySAGUN,AccusedAppellant.
DECISION
DELCASTILLO,J.:
Inthisappeal,appellantRommelArazaySagun(Araza)assailstheOctober14,2009Decision1oftheCourtof
Appeals (CA) in CAG.R. CRH.C. No. 03164 which affirmed the December 11, 2007 Decision2 of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC), Branch 93, San Pedro, Laguna in Criminal Case No. 3829SPL finding him guilty beyond
reasonabledoubtofillegalpossessionofshabu.
FactualAntecedents
On August 15, 2003, an Information3 for violation of Section 11, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165)
otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 was filed against Araza, the accusatory
portionofwhichreadsasfollows:
ThatonoraboutAugust28,2002,intheMunicipalityofSanPedro,ProvinceofLaguna,Philippinesandwithinthe
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court the said accused, not being authorized by law, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, control and custody one (1) small heatsealed transparent
plasticsachet containing METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE commonly known as "shabu," a dangerous
drug,weighingzeropointzerosix(0.06)gram.
CONTRARYTOLAW.4
Duringarraignment,Arazapleaded"notguilty."5Thereafter,trialensued.
VersionoftheProsecution
TheprosecutionpresentedPoliceOfficer1EdmundTalacca(PO1Talacca)whotestifiedasfollows:
At around 8:00 p.m. of August 28, 2002,PO1 Talacca accompanied the Barangay Chairman, BarangayTanods
andseveralmembersofthebarangaycouncilinconfiscatingavideokareramachineinsidethehouseofacertain
Alejandro Sacdo (Sacdo). While confiscating said machine, PO1 Talacca saw nine persons, including Araza,
sniffingshabuorengaginginapotsessioninsidethehouseofSacdo.Hearrestedandfriskedthem.Recovered
from the pocket of Araza was a small heatsealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline
substancewhichPO1Talaccasuspectedtobeshabu.PO1Talaccaimmediatelyseizedsaidsachetandbrought
Araza and his companions to the police station. He turned over the said sachet to the chief investigator, Larry
Cabrera(Cabrera),whomarkedthesamewiththeinitials"RSA"inhispresence.
TheprosecutionwassupposedtoalsopresentPoliceSeniorInspectorDonnaVillaHuelgas(P/Sr.Insp.Huelgas),
theForensicChemistwhoexaminedtheconfiscatedwhitecrystallinesubstance,buthertestimonywasdispensed
withafterthedefenseagreedtothefollowingstipulations:1)ChemistryReportNo.D202802asExhibit"B"2)
the name of suspect Rommel Araza ySagun as Exhibit "B1" 3) the specimen submitted as Exhibit "B2" 4)
findingsas Exhibit "B3" 5) conclusion as Exhibit "B4" 6) the name and signature of P/Sr. Insp. Huelgas as
Exhibits "B5" 7) the request for laboratory examination as Exhibit "C" 8) the name of suspect Rommel Araza
ySagunasExhibit"C1"9)theevidencesubmittedasExhibit"C2"10)thestampmarkasExhibit"C3"11)the
halfsize white envelope as Exhibit "D" 12) the plastic sachet as Exhibit "D1" and 13) the small heatsealed
plasticsachetsasExhibit"D1A."6
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_190623_2014.html

1/8

8/4/2016

G.R.No.190623

VersionoftheDefense
Thedefensepresentedacompletelydifferentversionoftheincident.Arazatestifiedthathewassleepinginsidea
roominthehouseofSacdowhenPO1Talaccasuddenlywokehimupandfriskedhim.PO1Talaccaconfiscated
his wallet that contained coins then took him to the police station and charged him with illegal possession of
prohibiteddrugs.
RulingoftheRegionalTrialCourt
The RTC ruled thatthe prosecution was able toestablish the guilt of Araza beyond reasonable doubt. It gave
credencetothetestimonyofPO1Talaccasinceheispresumedtohaveregularlyperformedhisdutiesandthere
was no evidence that he had any motive to falsely testify against Araza. The RTC rejected Arazas alibi as a
feeble defense that cannot prevail over the positive testimony of PO1 Talacca. The dispositive portion of the
December11,2007Decision7oftheRTCreads:
WHEREFORE, the Court herebysentences accused ROMMEL ARAZA y SAGUN to suffer an indeterminate
penalty of imprisonment from twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to fifteen (15)years as maximum
andtopayafineintheamountofP300,000.00.
The0.06gramofMethamphetamineHydrochloride"shabu"whichconstitutestheinstrumentinthecommissionof
the crime is confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government. Atty. Jaarmy BolusRomero, Branch Clerk of
Court,isherebydirectedtoimmediatelytransmitthe0.06[gram]ofMethamphetamineHydrochloride"shabu"to
theDangerousDrugsBoardforproperdisposition.
Costsagainstaccused.
SOORDERED.8
Araza filed a notice of appeal9 which was approved bythe RTC. Hence, the entire records of the casewere
forwardedtotheCA.10
RulingoftheCourtofAppeals
In his brief,11 Araza highlighted PO1 Talaccas admission under oath that the shabuwas confiscated from his
pocket and not in plain view. He posited that the shabu is inadmissible in evidence since it was illegally seized,
havingbeentakenfromhispocketandnotasanincidentofanarrestinflagrantedelicto.Arazalikewiseargued
that the rule on chain of custody was not properly adhered to since there was no evidence that a physical
inventoryoftheshabuwasconductedinthepresenceofanyelectedlocalgovernmentofficialandthemedia.He
claimedthatthepossibilityoftampering,alterationorsubstitutionofthesubstancemayhavebeenpresentsince
theinvestigatingofficerwhomarkedtheseizedshabuinthepolicestationandthepersonwhodeliveredthesame
tothecrimelaboratorywerenotpresentedduringthetrial.
TheCA,however,wasnotimpressed.ItruledthatArazawasestoppedfromassailingthelegalityofhisarrestfor
hisfailuretomovetoquashtheInformationagainsthimpriortoarraignment.Italsoheldthathecouldnolonger
question the chain of custody for failing to raise the same during trial. Besides, the prosecution was able to
establishtheintegrityandevidentiaryvalueoftheseizeditem.Thus,theCAissueditsassailedDecision12withthe
followingdispositiveportion:
WHEREFORE,theassailedDecisiondated11December2007oftheRegionalTrialCourt,FourthJudicialRegion,
SanPedro,Laguna,Branch93,inCriminalCaseNo.3829SPL,isherebyAFFIRMED.
SOORDERED.13
Hence,thisappealwhereArazaseeksforhisacquittal.
Issues
OnFebruary15,2010,thepartiesweredirectedtofiletheirrespectivesupplementalbriefsbutbothofthemopted
tojustadoptthebrieftheysubmittedbeforetheCA.
ArazaimputeserrorupontheRTCandCAinupholdingthevalidityofhiswarrantlessarrestandinfindingthatthe
procedureforthecustodyandcontrolofprohibiteddrugswascompliedwith.14
OurRuling
Theappealisunmeritorious.
Theoffenseofillegalpossessionofdangerousdrugshasbeenestablished.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_190623_2014.html

2/8

8/4/2016

G.R.No.190623

The elements that must be established in the successful prosecution of a dangerous drugs case are: "(1) the
accusedisinpossessionofanitemorobjectwhichisidentifiedtobeaprohibiteddrug(2)suchpossessionisnot
authorizedbylawand(3)theaccusedfreelyandconsciouslypossessedthedrug."15"Merepossessionxxxofa
prohibiteddrug,withoutlegalauthority,ispunishableunder[RA9165]."16
The prosecution satisfied the foregoing elements during trial. The arresting officer, PO1 Talacca, positively
identifiedArazaasthepersoncaughtinpossessionoftheshabupresentedincourt.Hestatedthattheshabuwas
validly confiscated after Araza was arrested in flagrante delicto sniffing shabuin the company of other people.
Relevantportionsofhistestimonyareasfollows:
QDoyourecallwhereyouwereonAugust28,2002ataround8:00oclockintheevening?
AYes,maam,IwaswiththebarangaychairmanofBrgy.Langgam,SanPedro,Laguna,PoliceOfficerMendoza,
some members of the barangay council and members of the barangay tanod. [W]e went to Brgy. Langgam to
conductaconfiscationofvideokarerainthehouseofAlejandroSacdo.
xxxx
QWhenyouarrivedatthehouseofAlejandroSacdo,whathappened?
AWe[wentdirectly]tothehouseofAlejandroSacdo[where]wefoundavideokarera.
QWhatdidyoudowhenyousawthattherewasavideokareramachineinsidethehouse?
AThebarangaychairmanand[the]membersofourgroupimmediatelyconfiscatedthevideokareramachine.
QWasAlejandroSacdoinsidehishousethen?
AYes,maam,hewaspresent.
xxxx
QAsidefromAlejandroSacdo,whoelse,ifany,wasinsidethathouse?
ATherewereallinallninepersons,includingAlejandroSacdo.
QWhatweretheydoing?
ATheywereinsidethehouseofAlejandroSacdosniffingshabu.
QAfterthat,whatdidyoudo?
AIcalledtheattentionofourcompanions,thebarangayofficialsandthetanodsandweimmediately[entered]the
houseandarrestedtheseninepeople.
QAfteryouarrestedtheninepeople,includingAlejandroSacdo,whathappenednext?
AWhenwearrestedtheninepersons,itisourstandardoperatingproceduretosearcheachsuspectandwhenI
searchedMr.Araza,Ifoundonesmallheat[]sealedplasticsachet[on]him.QYoureferredtoMr.RommelAraza
ySagunastheonefromwhomyouwereabletoconfiscateasmallheat[]sealedplastic[sachet],ifheisincourt
rightnow,willyoubeabletoidentifyhim?
A Yes, maam, there he is (witness pointing to a man seated inside the courtroom who identified himself as
RommelArazaySagun)
QAfteryouarrestedtheninepersonsincludingAlejandroSacdoandhereinaccusedArazaandafterconfiscating
fromhimthesmallheat[]sealedplasticsachet,whatdidyoudonext?
AWebroughtthemtothebarangayhallofBrgy.Langgam.
QWhatdidyoudonext?
A After we [took down their names and pertinent details] in the blotter, all of them were brought to the police
stationforinvestigationandproperfilingofcaseagainstthem.
QWhatdidyoudowiththespecimenyouconfiscatedfromAraza?
AIgaveittoourchiefinvestigator,OfficerLarryCabrera,forproper[marking]ofthespecimenandforthemto
deliverthesametothecrimelaboratoryforexamination.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_190623_2014.html

3/8

8/4/2016

G.R.No.190623

QWherewereyouthenwhenthepoliceinvestigatorputthemarkingsonthespecimen?
AIwasinfrontofhim,maam.
QDidyouseewhatmarkingswereplacedonthespecimen?
AYes,maam,itwasRSAwhichstandsforthenameofRommelArazaySagun.17ChemistryReportNo.D2028
02 confirmed that a qualitative examination conducted on the specimen inside the plastic sachet seized from
Arazayieldedpositiveresultformethamphetaminehydrochlorideorshabu.18
WefindthestatementofPO1Talaccatobecredible.Thenarrationoftheincidentbyapoliceofficer,"buttressed
by the presumption that they have regularly performed their duties in the absence of convincing proof to the
contrary,mustbegivenweight."19Histestimony,thephysicalevidenceandthefactsstipulateduponduringtrial
wereconsistent with each other. Araza also failed to adduce evidence showing thathe had legal authority to
possesstheseizeddrugs.Thus,thereisnoreasontodisturbthefindingsoftheRTCasaffirmedbytheCA.
Anaccusedcannotassailanyirregularityinthemannerofhisarrestafterarraignment.
ArazacallsattentiontotheadmissionofPO1Talaccathattheshabuwasconfiscatedfromhispocketandwasnot
in plain view. Hetherefore posits that he was not apprehended in flagrante delicto and the ensuing warrantless
arrestwasinvalid.Moreover,thesachetallegedlyseizedfromhimisnotadmissibleinevidenceagainsthimbeing
thefruitofapoisonoustree.
Suchanargumentisunworthyofcredencesinceobjectionstoawarrantofarrestortheprocedurebywhichthe
court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be manifested prior to entering his plea.20
Otherwise, the objection is deemed waived.21 Moreover, jurisprudence dictates that "the illegal arrest of an
accusedisnotsufficientcauseforsettingasideavalidjudgmentrendereduponasufficientcomplaintafteratrial
freefromerror.Itwillnotevennegatethevalidityoftheconvictionoftheaccused."22
Here, Araza did not object to the alleged irregularity of his arrest before or during his arraignment. He even
activelyparticipatedintheproceedingsbeforetheRTC.Heis,therefore,deemedtohavewaivedanydefecthe
believestohaveexistedduringhisarrestandeffectivelysubmittedhimselftothejurisdictionoftheRTC.Inother
words,Arazaisalreadyestoppedfromassailinganyirregularityinhisarrestafterhefailedtoraisethisissueorto
moveforthequashaloftheInformationonthisgroundbeforehisarraignment.
Circumstanceswhenwarrantlesssearchandsubsequentseizurearevalid.
AstotheadmissibilityoftheshabuseizedfromAraza,itiscrucialtoascertainwhetherthesearchthatyieldedthe
allegedcontrabandwaslawful.23TheConstitutionstatesthatfailuretosecureajudicialwarrantpriortotheactual
search and consequent seizure would render it unreasonable and any evidence obtained therefrom shall be
inadmissibleforanypurposeinanyproceeding.24Thisconstitutionalprohibition,however,admitsofthefollowing
exceptions:
1.Warrantlesssearchincidentaltoalawfularrest
2.Searchofevidencein"plainview"
3.Searchofamovingvehicle
4.Consentedwarrantlesssearch
5.Customssearch
6.StopandFriskand
7.Exigentandemergencycircumstances.25
Inthiscase,thereissufficientevidencetoprovethatthewarrantlesssearchofArazawaseffectedasanincident
toalawfularrest.Section5,Rule113oftheRulesofCourtprovidesinpart:
Sec.5.Arrestwithoutwarrantwhenlawful.Apeaceofficeroraprivatepersonmay,withoutawarrant,arresta
person:
(a)When,inhispresence,thepersontobearrestedhascommitted,isactuallycommitting,orisattempting
tocommitanoffense
(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal
knowledgeoffactsorcircumstancesthatthepersontobearrestedhascommitteditand
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_190623_2014.html

4/8

8/4/2016

G.R.No.190623

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place
whereheisservingfinaljudgmentortemporarilyconfinedwhilehiscaseispending,orhasescapedwhile
beingtransferredfromoneconfinementtoanother.
PO1TalaccatestifiedthathesawArazaandhiscompanionssniffingsubstancethatseemedtobeshabuinside
the premises where a video karera machine was being confiscated by the barangay officials for whom he
providedsecurity.Hethusenteredtheroom,effectedtheirarrestandconductedabodysearchonthem.Upon
searching the person of Araza, PO1 Talacca recovered from him a plastic sachet containing white crystalline
substance.Arazaandtheseizeditemwerethenbroughttothepolicestation.Afteralaboratoryexamination,the
whitecrystallinesubstanceinsidethesachetwasfoundpositiveforshabu.
Consideringtheforegoing,Arazawasclearlyapprehendedinflagrantedelictoashewasthencommittingacrime
(sniffingshabu)inthepresenceofPO1Talacca.Hence,hiswarrantlessarrestisvalidpursuanttoSection5(a)of
theabovequotedRule113oftheRulesofCourt.Andhavingbeenlawfullyarrested,thewarrantlesssearchthat
followedwasundoubtedlyincidentaltoalawfularrest,whichasmentioned,isanexceptiontotheconstitutional
prohibitiononwarrantlesssearchandseizure.Conversely,theshabuseizedfromArazaisadmissibleinevidence
toprovehisguiltoftheoffensecharged.
FailuretocomplywithSection21,ArticleIIofRepublicActNo.9165isnotfatal.
Araza hinges his claim for acquittal on the failure of the police officers to submit a precoordination report and
physicalinventoryoftheseizeddangerousdrug.HecitesSection21(1),Art.IIofRA9165,whichprovides:
Sec.21.CustodyandDispositionofConfiscated,Seized,and/orSurrenderedDangerousDrugs,PlantSourcesof
DangerousDrugs,ControlledPrecursorsandEssentialChemicals,Instruments/Paraphernaliaand/orLaboratory
Equipment.ThePDEAshalltakechargeandhavecustodyofalldangerousdrugs,plantsourcesofdangerous
drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory
equipmentsoconfiscated,seizedand/orsurrendered,forproperdispositioninthefollowingmanner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and
confiscation,physicallyinventoryandphotographthesameinthepresenceoftheaccused,ortheperson/sfrom
whomsuchitemswereconfiscatedand/orseized,orhis/herrepresentativeorcounsel,arepresentativefromthe
media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the
copiesoftheinventoryandbegivenacopythereof.
However,ithasbeenheldtimeandagainthatfailuretostrictlycomplywithaforesaidprocedurewillnotrenderan
arrestillegalortheseizeditemsinadmissibleinevidence.Substantialcomplianceissufficientasprovidedunder
Section21(a)oftheImplementingRulesandRegulationsofRA9165,viz:
(a)Theapprehendingofficer/teamhavinginitialcustodyandcontrolofthedrugsshall,immediatelyafterseizure
andconfiscation,physicallyinventoryandphotographthesameinthepresenceoftheaccusedortheperson/s
from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative
fromthemediaandtheDepartmentofJustice(DOJ),andanyelectedpublicofficialwhoshallberequiredtosign
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,further,thatnoncompliancewiththeserequirementsunderjustifiablegrounds,aslongastheintegrity
andtheevidentiaryvalueoftheseizeditemsareproperlypreservedbytheapprehendingofficer/team,shallnot
rendervoidandinvalidsuchseizuresofandcustodyoversaiditems(Emphasissupplied)
Arazascontentionthattheremustbecompliancewithaprecoordinationreporthasnolegalbasissincenowhere
isitstatedintheforegoingprovisionthatthisisanessentialproceduralrequisite.Aprecoordinationreportisalso
notneededwhenanaccusedisapprehendedinflagrantedelictoforobviousreason.
Further, failure by the prosecution to prove that the police officers conducted the required physical inventory of
the seized shabudoes not immediately result in the unlawful arrest of an accused or render inadmissible in
evidencetheitemsseized."Whatisessentialisthepreservationoftheintegrityandtheevidentiaryvalueofthe
seizeditems,asthesamewouldbeutilizedinthedeterminationoftheguiltorinnocenceoftheaccused."26Here,
therecordsrevealthatthepoliceofficerssubstantiallycompliedwiththeprocessofpreservingtheintegrityofthe
seizedshabu.
Thechainofcustodyhasnotbeenbroken.
Arazalikewisecontendsthattheprosecutionfailedtoproperlyestablishthechainofcustodyofevidence,andthis
adverselyaffecteditsadmissibility.Hearguesthatthenonpresentationoftheinvestigatingofficerandtheperson
who delivered the specimen to the police crime laboratory creates serious doubt that the alleged
shabuconfiscated from him was the same one marked, forwarded to the crime laboratory for examination, and
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_190623_2014.html

5/8

8/4/2016

G.R.No.190623

laterpresentedasevidenceincourt.Heputsforwardthepossibilitythattheevidencemayhavebeentampered,
altered,and/orsubstitutedaswouldaffectitsidentityandintegrity.
Section1(b)ofDangerousDrugsBoardRegulationNo.1,Seriesof2002,implementingRA9165,defineschain
of custody as "the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs orcontrolled chemicals or
plantsourcesofdangerousdrugsorlaboratoryequipmentofeachstage,fromthetimeofseizure/confiscationto
receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of
movements and custody of [the] seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held
temporarycustodyoftheseizeditem,thedateandtimewhensuchtransferofcustodyweremadeinthecourse
ofsafekeepinganduseincourtasevidence,andthefinaldisposition."
The chain of custody requirement ensures the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
itemssuchthatdoubtsastotheidentityoftheevidenceareeliminated.27"Tobeadmissible,theprosecutionmust
showbyrecordsortestimony,thecontinuouswhereaboutsoftheexhibitatleastbetweenthetimeitcameinto
possession of the police officers and until it was tested in the laboratory to determine its composition up to the
timeitwasofferedinevidence."28
Here, the prosecution proved the chain of custody of the seized shabuas follows: After arresting Araza for
possession of a sachet of suspected shabu, PO1 Talacca brought him and the confiscated item to the police
station.Thesaidsachetwasturnedovertothechiefinvestigator,Cabrera,whomarkeditwiththeinitials"RSA"in
frontofPO1Talacca.Arequestforlaboratoryexaminationofthecontentsofsaidsachetwasdelivered,together
withthesachetofsuspectedshabu,tothePNPCrimeLaboratoryinCalamba,Laguna.ForensicChemistP/Sr.
Insp. Huelgas examined the contents ofthe sachet with markings "RSA" and prepared Chemistry Report No. D
202802,confirmingthatthespecimentestedpositiveforshabu.Duringthetrial,thisresultwassubmittedtothe
RTC as Exhibit "D" and stipulated on by both parties.29 The marked sachet of shabuwas also presented in
evidenceandidentifiedbyPO1Talacca.
Arazascontentionthattheinvestigatingofficerwhoreceivedtheseizeddruginthepolicestationandtheperson
who delivered the same to the crime laboratory should have been presented to establish an unbroken chain of
custodyfailstoimpress.Itisnotnecessarytopresentallpersonswhocameintocontactwiththeseizeddrugto
testify in court.30 "As long as the chain of custody of the seized drug was clearly established to have not been
brokenandtheprosecutiondidnotfailtoidentifyproperlythedrugsseized,itisnotindispensablethateachand
everypersonwhocameintopossessionofthedrugsshouldtakethewitnessstand."31Thenonpresentationas
witnessesoftheevidencecustodianandtheofficerondutyisnotacrucialpointagainsttheprosecutionsinceit
hasthediscretionastohowtopresentitscaseandtherighttochoosewhomitwishestopresentaswitnesses.32
Basedontheforegoingfindings,thechainofcustodyoftheseizedsubstancewasnotbroken. The suspected
illegaldrugconfiscatedfromArazawasthesamesubstancepresentedandidentifiedincourt.Thereistherefore
noreasontodisturbthefindingsoftheRTC,asaffirmedbytheCA,thatheisguiltybeyondreasonabledoubtof
illegalpossessionofadangerousdrug.
1 w p h i1

ProperPenalty
Section11,ArticleIIofRA9165,provides:
Sec. 11. Possession qf' Dangerous Drugs. The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from
Fivehundredthousandpesos(P500,000.00)toTenmillionpesos(P10,000,000.00)shallbeimposeduponany
personwho,unlessauthorizedbylaw,shallpossessanydangerousdruginthefollowingquantities,regardlessof
thedegreeofpuritythereof
xxxx
Otherwise,ifthequantityinvolvedislessthantheforegoingquantities,thepenaltiesshallbegraduatedas
follows:
xxxx
(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three
hundred thousand (P300,000.00) pesos 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 x x x. (Emphasis
supplied)
Arazawasfoundguiltyofpossessing0.06gramofshabu,orlessthanfivegramsofthedangerousdrug,without
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_190623_2014.html

6/8

8/4/2016

G.R.No.190623

anylegalauthority.Underthesecircumstances,thepenaltyofimprisonmentimposedbytheRTCandaffinnedby
theCA,whichistwelve(12)yearsandone(1)dayasminimumtofifteen(15)yearsasmaximum,iswithinthe
range provided by RA 9165. Thus, the Court finds the same, as well as the payment of fine of P300,000.00 in
order.WHEREFORE,theappealisDISMISSED.TheDecisiondatedOctober14,2009oftheCourtofAppealsin
CAG.R.CRH.C.No.03164isAFFIRMED.
SOORDERED.
MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:
ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson
ARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJustice

JOSECATRALMENDOZA
AssociateJustice
MARVICM.V.F.LEONEN
AssociateJustice
ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.
ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitutionandtheDivisionChairperson'sAttestation,Icertifythatthe
conclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriterof
theopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.
MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
ChiefJustice

Footnotes
1

CA rollo, pp. 8291 penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao and concurred in by Associate
JusticesBienvenidoL.Reyes(nowaMemberofthisCourt)andAntonioL.Villamor.
2

Records,pp.102104pennedbyJudgeFranciscoDizonPao.

Id.at1.

Id.

Id.at16.

Id.at56.

Id.at102104.

Id.at103104.

Id.at108.

10

Id.at109.

11

CArollo,pp.at2640.

12

Id.at8291.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_190623_2014.html

7/8

8/4/2016

G.R.No.190623
13

Id.at90.

14

SeeBrieffortheAccusedAppellant,id.at2640.

15

Peoplev.Partoza,G.R.No.182418,May8,2009,587SCRA809,816.

16

Peoplev.Mariacos,G.R.No.188611,June21,2010,621SCRA327,344345.

17

TSN,February18,2004,pp.34.

18

Records,p.9.

19

Peoplev.Llanita,G.R.No.189817,October3,2012,682SCRA288,300301.

20

Syv.People,G.R.No.182178,August15,2011,655SCRA395,403404.

21

Id.at404.

22

Id.

23

Id.

24

CONSTITUTION,ArticleIII,Sections2and3(2).

25

Syv.People,supranote20at405.

26

Peoplev.Guiara,G.R.No.186497,September17,2009,600SCRA310,329.

27

Peoplev.Llanita,supranote19at304.

28

Id.

29

Records,p.56.

30

Peoplev.Amansec,G.R.No.186131,December14,2011,662SCRA574,595.

31

Id.

32

Peoplev.Hernandez,607Phil.617,640(2009).

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_190623_2014.html

8/8

Вам также может понравиться