Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Second Division: Court of Appeals
Second Division: Court of Appeals
COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA
SECOND DIVISION
Accused-Appellant.
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
1
pp. 295-306, Original Records
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12972 2
People vs. San Jose
DECISION
x------------------------------------x
Dante San Jose y Angel of violation of Sections 5 2 and 11,3 Article II,
Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and accused Kenneth Edward Perez y
Dela Cruz, Corazon Antonio y Sison and Maria Aiza Ysabel Alfonso y
Villarba of violation of Section 14,4 RA No. 9165.
THE ANTECEDENTS
PO2 Loyd Anos frisked alias “Dante” and retrieved from his
right pocket six (6) small plastic sachets containing white crystalline
substance. PO2 Loyd Anos also recovered from alias “Dante’s” left
pocket the three (3) marked 100-peso bills used as buy-bust money.
PO3 Rommel Ramos called Barangay Kagawad Benjamin San Jose
and media representative Edwin Moreno to witness the marking and
inventory by PO2 Loyd Anos of the seized items, but only Barangay
Kagawad Benjamin San Jose arrived as media representative Edwin
Moreno’s cellular phone could not be reached. The plastic sachet
subject of the buy-bust was marked by PO2 Loyd Anos with “DAS,”
while the six (6) plastic sachets retrieved from alias “Dante” were
marked by PO2 Loyd Anos with “LMA-3,” “LMA-4,” “LMA-5,” “LMA-6,”
“LMA-7” and “LMA-8.” The aluminum foil with traces of white
crystalline substance and the aluminum foil used as improvised
tooter, as well as the two (2) lighters recovered from the man and two
women using drugs inside alias “Dante’s” house were marked by
PO2 Loyd Anos with “LMA-9,” “LMA-10,” “LMA-11” and “LMA-12,”
respectively. Thereafter, PO2 Loyd Anos conducted an inventory of
the seized items. The marking and inventory were made in the
presence of accused-appellants and Barangay Kagawad Benjamin
San Jose, who signed the “Receipt/Inventory of Evidence
Seized/Photograph of the Drugs in the Presence of the Accused or
Person/s From Whom Seized Items Were Confiscated,” at the place
of arrest.11 Photographs of the seized items, the conduct of the
inventory and the witnesses thereto were taken by PO3 Rommel
Ramos.12 According to the police officers, they tried their best to
10
p. 175, Original Records
11
pp. 175, 185, Ibid.
12
p. 183, Ibid.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12972 5
People vs. San Jose
DECISION
x------------------------------------x
not being authorized by law, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully
and knowingly sell, give and deliver to PO2 Loyd M. Anos, a poseur
buyer, one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet, marked 'DAS'
containing 0.03 gram of white crystalline substance, in exchange for
a consideration of Php300.00, which after the corresponding
laboratory examination conducted by the Rizal Provincial Crime
Laboratory Office, Hilltop, Tikling, Taytay, Rizal, gave positive result
to the test for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug,
in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”25
CONTRARY TO LAW.”27
CONTRARY TO LAW.”29
“1. That the Hon. Court has jurisdiction over the persons of the
accused and over these cases – Admitted.
2. That the names of the accused are: Dante San Jose y Angel,
Kenneth Edward Perez y Dela Cruz, Corazon Antonio y
Sison and Maria Aiza Ysabel Alfonso y Villarba, and
whenever the said names are mentioned at any stage of the
proceedings, it would refer to both the accused – Admitted.” 32
29
p. 42, Ibid.
30
p. 125, Ibid.
31
pp. 125-133, Ibid.
32
p. 125, Ibid.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12972 9
People vs. San Jose
DECISION
x------------------------------------x
33
TSN dated March 7, 2018
34
TSN dated March 7, 2018
35
TSN dated March 7, 2018
36
TSN dated September 19, 2018
37
TSN dated April 30, 2018
38
TSN dated October 15, 2018
39
TSN dated November 28, 2018
40
p. 2, TSN dated March 7, 2018; p. 12, TSN dated April 30, 2018
41
p. 2, TSN dated March 7, 2018
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12972 10
People vs. San Jose
DECISION
x------------------------------------x
42
p. 3, Ibid.
43
pp. 295-306, Original Records
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12972 11
People vs. San Jose
DECISION
x------------------------------------x
All the accused are credited with the time spent for their
preventive detention in accordance with Article 29, Revised Penal
Code (RPC) as amended. Meanwhile, the Fine herein imposed is
subject to subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency pursuant
to Article 39 of the RPC, as amended.
SO ORDERED.”44
“I.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN
CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF
VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 5 AND 11, ARTICLE II OF
R.A. NO. 9165, NOTWITHSTANDING THE PATENT
NULLITY OF THE INFORMATION FILED AGAINST
HIM.
44
pp. 305-306, Ibid.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12972 12
People vs. San Jose
DECISION
x------------------------------------x
II.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN
CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF
VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 5 AND 11, ARTICLE II OF
R.A. NO. 9165, IN SPITE OF THE PROSECUTION’S
FAILURE TO PROVE THAT A LEGITIMATE BUY-
BUST OPERATION OCCURRED, CONSIDERING
THE INCONSISTENT AND INCREDIBLE
TESTIMONY OF PO2 LOYD ANOS.
III.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN
CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF
VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 5 AND 11, ARTICLE II OF
R.A. NO. 9165, NOTWITHSTANDING THE
PROSECUTION’S FAILURE TO PROVE THE
ELEMENTS THEREOF BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT.”
IV.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN
CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF
VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 5 AND 11, ARTICLE II OF
R.A. NO. 9165, DESPITE THE APPREHENDING
OFFICER’S FAILURE TO FAITHFULLY COMPLY
WITH THE PERTINENT DRUG ENFORCEMENT
RULES AND REGULATIONS.
V.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN IMPOSING
THE PENALTY OF SUBSIDIARY IMPRISONMENT
AGAINST THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT.45
THE ISSUE
45
pp. 43-44, Rollo
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12972 13
People vs. San Jose
DECISION
x------------------------------------x
before the court, as required under Rule 112-clearly show that 1st
Assistant City Prosecutor (ACP) Jaime A. Adoc, signing in behalf of
the City Prosecutor, approved the filing of four (4) counts of
violation of B.P. 22, after it was recommended for approval by the
Investigating Prosecutor.
Contrary to the dissent that the prior approval came from the
1st Assistant Prosecutor, who had no authority to file an Information
on his own, the afore-quoted dispositive clearly indicates that ACP
Adoc approved the filing of the case "FOR THE CITY
PROSECUTOR" and not on his own. It would be too late at this
stage to task the prosecution, and it would amount to denial of due
process, to presume that ACP Adoc had no authority to approve the
filing of the subject Informations. Had petitioners questioned ACP A
doc's authority or lack of approval by the city prosecutor before the
Me TC, and not just for the first time before the Court, the
prosecution could have easily presented such authority to approve
the filing of the Information.”
52
pp. 57, 58, Ibid.
53
p. 59, Ibid.
54
People of the Philippines vs. Saidamen Macatingag, 576 SCRA 354, January 19, 2009
55
People of the Philippines vs. Erlinda Mali, 712 SCRA 776, December 11, 2013
56
People of the Philippines vs. Jose Cutara, G.R. No. 224300, June 7, 2017
57
People of the Philippines vs. Linda Alviz, et al., 690 SCRA 61, February 6, 2013
58
People of the Philippines vs. Armando Mendoza, G.R. No. 220759, July 24, 2017
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12972 17
People vs. San Jose
DECISION
x------------------------------------x
59
People of the Philippines vs. Rosario Mahinay, G.R. No. 210656, December 7, 2016
60
p. 4, TSN dated March 7, 2018
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12972 18
People vs. San Jose
DECISION
x------------------------------------x
marking, the plastic sachet subject of the buy-bust operation “was not
marked with the initials of the apprehending officer,” and all the plastic
sachets “allegedly recovered from the accused-appellant did not bear
the signature of the seizing officer.” Furthermore, “the investigating
officer x x x was not identified” and “the stipulated testimony of the
forensic chemist failed to describe how she ensured the integrity of
the seized items.”80
83
People of the Philippines vs. Rustico Ygot, 797 SCRA 87, July 18, 2016
84
People of the Philippines vs. John Happy Domingo, G.R. No. 211672, June 1, 2016
85
People of the Philippines vs. Rico Enriquez, G.R. No. 214503, June 22, 2016
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12972 23
People vs. San Jose
DECISION
x------------------------------------x
98
p. 2, TSN dated March 7, 2018
99
People of the Philippines vs. Asir Gani, et al., 711 SCRA 78, November 27, 2013
100
People of the Philippines vs. Belban Sic-Open, 804 SCRA 94, September 21, 2016
101
People of the Philippines vs. Gerry Yable, 721 SCRA 91, April 7, 2014
102
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 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, including any and all species of
opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such
transactions.
103
People of the Philippines vs. Joy Angeles, G.R. No. 229099, February 27, 2019
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12972 27
People vs. San Jose
DECISION
x------------------------------------x
104
p. 68, Rollo
105
People of the Philippines vs. Jehlson Aguirre, et al., 845 SCRA 227, November 20, 2017
106
SECTION 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:
xxx xxx xxx
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be
graduated as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
(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.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12972 28
People vs. San Jose
DECISION
x------------------------------------x
SO ORDERED.
WE CONCUR:
NINA G. ANTONIO-VALENZUELA
Associate Justice
107
People of the Philippines vs. Rodolfo Suyu, et al., 499 SCRA 177, August 16, 2006
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12972 29
People vs. San Jose
DECISION
x------------------------------------x
CERTIFICATION