Drugs - PPH Vs Hertez
Drugs - PPH Vs Hertez
SECOND DIVISION
CARPIO, Chairperson,
-versus- BRION,
DEL CASTILLO,
PEREZ, and
~ *
LEONEN, JJ
JAJl\'IE FERNANDEZy HERTF.Z
a.k.u. ''DEBON", Promulgated:
Accused-Appellant MAR O__U_~11ill..\\~~~~~
x--------------------------------------------------------I ~·
DECISION
For this Court's review is the May 29, 2009 Decision 1 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. Wo. 03321 which affirmed with modification
2
the Joint Decision dated February 18, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
Branch 32, Pili, Camarines Sur finding appellant Jaime Fernandez y Hertez a.k.a.
3
"Debon" (appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of
methamphetamine hydrochloride also known .as shabu and illegal possession of
marijuana both defined and penalized under Republic Act (RA) No. 6425,
othePvise known as The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972~ as amended.
Factual Antecedent\'
At about 10:00 p.m. of J;lJ_v :2.1, 2001. combined dcrr•cms of the Bu!a
Po11ce cind !he CnmariGe~ Sur Pwviaciu! L--ltdligence Forcr::5 impkmented a sear7#~
4
Exhibit “A,” records of Criminal Case No. P-3163, p. 126.
5
Exhibit “B,” id. at 127.
6
Exhibits “C” and “C-1,” id. at 128.
7
TSN, July 12, 2002, p. 19.
8
Id. at 22.
9
Exhibit “K,” records of Criminal Case No. P-3163, p. 138.
10
Exhibit “J,” id. at 139.
11
Id. at 1.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 188841
Appellant and Erick pleaded not guilty to both charges when arraigned.
They interposed denial and frame-up as their defenses.
By Joint Decision dated February 18, 2008, the RTC acquitted Erick but
found appellant guilty of the charges, viz:
2.1. Crim. Case No. P-3163, as charged, and hereby sentences him
to suffer the penalty of 6 months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to 4 years
and 2 months of prision correccional, as maximum, and to pay a fine of
P100,000.00;
2.2. Crim. Case No. P-3178, as charged, and hereby sentences him
to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and a fine of P500,000.00;
12
Records of Criminal Case No. P-3178, p. 1.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 188841
SO ORDERED.13
Assignment of Errors
I
THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN RENDERING A VERDICT
OF CONVICTION DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE GUILT OF THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT.
II
THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO
THE INCONSISTENT AND INCREDIBLE TESTIMONIES OF THE
PROSECUTION WITNESSES.15
Our Ruling
13
Records of Criminal Case No. P-3163, p. 358.
14
CA rollo, p. 100.
15
Id. at 27.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 188841
In this case, the RTC found the witnesses for the prosecution credible.
There is no showing that the members of the search team were actuated by any ill
motive or that they planted the seized items. Hence, the RTC gave full faith and
credit to the prosecution witnesses’ version of the events that transpired on July
21, 2001.19 Moreover, the evidence of the prosecution sufficiently established that
(1) by virtue of a lawful search, PO3 Villano, PO2 Bienvenido C. Amador, Jr.
(PO2 Amador) and Inspector Cristino Pa-ac were able to seize from appellant’s
house suspected shabu and marijuana, among others; and, (2) when these
specimens were qualitatively examined, they yielded positive results for the said
prohibited drugs. The appellate court sustained these findings and conclusions of
the RTC after satisfying itself that there was no clear misapprehension of facts. In
view of the CA’s affirmance of the said findings of the RTC, and there being no
material facts that were overlooked by the lower courts, this Court finds no reason
to disturb their findings and conclusions and, hence, accords respect to the same.
With regard to the alleged inconsistent statements of PO3 Villano and PO2
Amador with respect to appellant’s exact location during the search and seizure,
the number of rooms inside the house, and the place where the shabu and rolled
marijuana leaves were found, suffice it to say that these matters are not vital and of
such significance as compared to the circumstances and the very act of finding the
dangerous drugs in the possession of the appellant which constitute the elements
of the crime. Criminal law jurisprudence invariably holds that inconsistencies in
16
Appellant’s Brief, id. at 27-43, 37.
17
People v. Dumlao, G.R. No. 181599, August 20, 2008, 562 SCRA762, 770.
18
G.R. No. 177572, February 26, 2008, 546 SCRA 703, 719.
19
Not January 21, 2001 as appearing in the RTC Decision.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 188841
Appellant next contends that the prosecution failed to establish the identity
of the prohibited drugs which constitute the corpus delicti of the offense.
x x x. The fact however that the dangerous drugs presented in court were
the same items recovered from appellant can be gleaned from the testimonies of
PO3 Villena and PO3 Amador, Jr., who narrated the incident from the time the
dangerous drugs were recovered from appellant, to the time the same were
inventoried in the presence of appellant and the witnesses, brought to the police
station, and finally referred to the forensic chemist for qualitative examination.
The integrity and identity of the confiscated items, particularly the dangerous
drugs, were thus properly safeguarded.21 (Citations omitted)
Like the courts below, this Court finds no circumstance whatsoever that
would raise any doubt as to the identity, integrity and evidentiary value of the
items subject matter of this case. The chain of custody was clearly not broken.
“Besides, the integrity of the evidence is presumed preserved unless there is a
showing of bad faith, ill will or proof that the evidence has been tampered with”22
in which the burden of proof falls on the appellant.23 Appellant failed to discharge
this burden.
20
G.R No. 185726, October 16, 2009, 604 SCRA 216, 231-232, citing People v. Togahan, G.R. No. 174064,
June 8, 2007, 524 SCRA 557, 572-573.
21
CA rollo, pp. 97-98.
22
People v. Macatingag, G.R. No. 181037, January 19, 2009, 576 SCRA 354, 369.
23
Id.
Decision 7 G.R. No. 188841
In the light of the foregoing analysis and the applicable jurisprudence on the
matter, this Court sustains the CA’s assailed Decision affirming appellant’s
conviction by the RTC of the crimes charged.
The Penalty
as maximum, imposed upon the appellant for the said crime. We also affirm the
CA's deletion of the fme of PI 00,000.00 imposed by the RTC since the second
paragraph of Section 20 ofRA 6425, as amended, provides only for the penalty of
imprisonment.
SO ORDERED.
.
#tJ&L~./
M~~O C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
Associate Justice
Chairperson
C1~Cit~·
Associate Justice
As}·oc'itJtc Justice
...
Decision 9 G.R. No. 188841
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division
Chairperson's Attestation, I certifY that the conclusions in the above Decision had
been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court's Division.