People v. Pena
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Appellant Ernesto Peña y Sarmiento was charged with violation of Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act (RA) 9165. The Informations alleged that on August 27, 2003, in Makati City, appellant unlawfully sold 0.04 gram of metamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) for ₱200, and unlawfully possessed 0.3 gram of shabu without authority. Procedural History: Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented MADAC operatives who conducted a buy-bust operation based on an informant's tip. They testified that appellant sold a sachet of shabu to a poseur-buyer and, upon apprehension, was found to be in possession of another sachet of shabu and the marked bills. The defense claimed appellant was framed up. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt for both offenses and imposed life imprisonment and a ₱500,000 fine for the sale, and 12 years and 1 day imprisonment and a ₱300,000 fine for possession. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision in toto. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court on appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant violated Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165. Whether the penalty imposed for violation of Section 11 of RA 9165 was correctly applied, considering the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the RTC and CA regarding the guilt of the appellant for violations of Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165. However, the Court modified the penalty imposed in Criminal Case No. 03-3300 (violation of Section 11) to comply with the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The dispositive portion sentenced appellant to life imprisonment and a ₱500,000 fine for the sale of shabu, and imprisonment for a minimum of 12 years and 1 day to a maximum of 20 years and a ₱300,000 fine for the possession of shabu.
Ratio Decidendi
On the violation of Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165: The Court held that the prosecution successfully established appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The buy-bust operation was conducted in accordance with law, and the testimonies of the MADAC operatives were credible. The elements of the crimes, namely the sale of dangerous drugs and the possession thereof without authority, were proven. The Court found no reason to disturb the factual findings of the RTC and CA, which were affirmed on intermediate appellate review. The defense of frame-up was unavailing against the clear and convincing evidence presented by the prosecution. The chain of custody of the confiscated dangerous drugs was also deemed unbroken, ensuring their integrity as evidence. On the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law: The Court found that the RTC and CA erred in imposing a straight penalty for the violation of Section 11 of RA 9165 without applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Section 11(3) of RA 9165, for quantities of dangerous drugs less than five grams of metamphetamine hydrochloride, prescribes imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years. The Indeterminate Sentence Law mandates that if the penalty prescribed by law is imprisonment of one year or more, the court shall impose an indeterminate sentence, the minimum of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, would be prescribed by the court within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by law, and the maximum of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, would be prescribed by the court within the range of the penalty prescribed by law. Therefore, the penalty for possession should have been an indeterminate sentence within the range provided by law, specifically from 12 years and 1 day to 20 years.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the conviction for sale and possession of dangerous drugs under RA 9165 but modified the penalty for possession to comply with the Indeterminate Sentence Law, imposing a minimum of 12 years and 1 day to a maximum of 20 years imprisonment.