FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. NO. 179718 : September 17, 2008]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. LOURDES V. LEGASPI, Appellant.
R E S O L U T I O N
CORONA, J.:
That on or about the 14th day of March, 2001, in the Municipality of Meycauayan, Province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in her possession and control One (1) brick of dried marijuana fruiting tops weighing 900.00 grams which is a prohibited drug.Criminal Case No. 750-M-01
Contrary to law.
That on or about the 14th day of March, 2001, in the Municipality of Meycauayan, Province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law and legal justification, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his [sic] possession and control Twenty-Eight (28) small size heat-sealed transparent plastic pack containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) weighing 8.663 gram,[sic] which is a regulated drug.On arraignment, appellant, assisted by counsel, entered a plea of not guilty to both charges. Trial on the merits ensued.
Contrary to law.
WHEREFORE, in view of the above, accused Lourdes V. Legaspi is hereby found GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the offenses charged. In Criminal Case No. 749-M-01, she is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and a fine of P500,000.00. In Criminal Case No. 750-M-01, she is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of one (1) year of Prision Correccional.On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision with modification4 of the penalty5 imposed for Criminal Case No. 750-M-01. Thus:
The Branch Clerk of Court is hereby ordered to immediately turn over the dangerous drugs involved in this case to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper disposition and destruction.
SO ORDERED.
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing disquisitions, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos City, Branch 76, finding appellant Lourdes V. Legaspi, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 8, Article II and of Section 16, Article III of Republic Act 6425, is[,] hereby, AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as maximum, in Criminal Case No. 750-M-01.We affirm the CA.
SO ORDERED.
Endnotes:
* As replacement of Justice Antonio T. Carpio who is on official leave per Special Order No. 515.
1 Section 8, Article II of R.A. No. 6425, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, provides:Sec. 8. Possession or Use of Prohibited Drugs. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall possess or use any prohibited drugs subject to the provisions of Section 20 hereof.2 Section 16, Article III of the same law, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, provides:Sec. 16. Possession or Use of Regulated Drugs. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall possess or use any regulated drug without the corresponding license or prescription, subject to the provisions of Section 20 hereof.Section 20 thereof sets forth the penalties to be imposed. Thus:Sec. 20. Application of Penalties, Confiscation and Forfeiture of the Procedure or Instruments of the Crime. - The penalties for offenses under Sections 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of Article II and Sections 14, 14-A, 15 and 16 of Article III of this Act shall be applied if the dangerous drugs involved is in any of the following quantities:3 Penned by Judge Candido R. Belmonte. Dated September 7, 2004. CA rollo, pp. 11-20.
x x x
3. 200 grams or more of shabu or methylamphetamine hydrochloride;
x x x
5. 750 grams or more of indian hemp or marijuana;
x x x
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalty shall range from prision correccional to reclusion perpetua depending upon the quantity.
x x x (As amended by R.A. No. 7659)
4 Penned by Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and Myrna Dimaranan Vidal of the Tenth Division of the Court of Appeals. Dated April 26, 2007. Rollo, pp. 2-21.
5 See Rigor v. The Superintendent, New Bilibid Prison, 458 Phil. 561, 567 (2003).
6 Section 9, Article 126 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:Sec. 9. Time of making search. - The warrant must direct that it be served in the day time, unless the affidavit asserts that the property is on the person or in the place ordered to be searched, in which case a direction may be inserted that it be served at any time of the day or night.7People v. Che Chun Ting, 385 Phil. 305, 320 (2000).
8Mendoza v. People, G.R. No. 173551, 7 October 2007.
9People v. Romero, 459 Phil. 484, 502 (2003).