Criminal Case No. 17945-R
That on or about the 11th day of June 2000 in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody, and control, one (1) brick of dried marijuana leaves having a weight of 826.4 grams wrapped with newspaper pages, knowing fully well that said leaves are marijuana leaves, a prohibited drug, in violation of the abovementioned provision of law.
Criminal Case No. 17946-R
That on or about the 11th day of July 2000 in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and control 4.12 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), contained in a heat sealed plastic bag, a regulated drug(s), without the corresponding license or prescription, in violation of the aforecited provision of law.3
On July 9, 2000, at about 9:00 in the morning, a certain Manuel De Vera reported to the office of the 14th Regional Criminal Investigation and Detection Group that accused-appellant Velasquez is engaged in selling shabu and marijuana dried leaves in his residence at No. 144 Paraan St., Victoria Village, Quezon Hill, Baguio City. De Vera allegedly came to know of the said activities of accused-appellant Velasquez when his co-driver, a certain Arnold, whom he claimed as a shabu user, told him about it.
On the same day, SPO1 Modesto Carrera instructed De Vera to buy shabu and gave him P600.00 to verify the truthfulness of the allegations against accused-appellant Velasquez. De Vera and Arnold were able to buy shabu and marijuana which they gave later to SPO1 Carrera.
Thereafter, SPO1 Carrera filed with the RTC of Baguio City, Branch 59, an application for the issuance of a search warrant against accused-appellant Velasquez, which was eventually granted.
On July 13, 2000, a team composed of P/Sr. Insp. Castil, PO1 Sawad, PO2 Cejas, PO1 Labiasto, SPO1 Carrera, SPO1 Lacangan and PO1 Amangao was formed to implement the search warrant. They sought the assistance of Barangay Kagawad Jaime Udani and Barangay Kagawad Lilian Somera of Barangay Victoria Village to witness the search. The police officers together with Udani and Somera proceeded to the residence of accused-appellant Velasquez, introduced themselves and presented the search warrant.
In the course of the search, PO1 Amangao and SPO1 Lacangan found in the bedroom of accused-appellant Velasquez a plastic bag containing a brick of dried leaves suspected to be marijuana, which was wrapped in an old newspaper. After informing accused-appellant Velasquez that they found illegal drugs inside his bedroom, SPO1 Lacangan arrested him and apprised him of his constitutional rights. When accused-appellant Velasquez was frisked, one transparent heat-sealed plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance suspected to be shabuwas found in his pocket. The search on accused-appellant Velasquezs residence also yielded 36 pieces of rolling papers, aluminum foil and tooter, among others.11
In the morning of June 11, 2000, accused-appellant Velasquez was in his house at 143 Quezon Hill when his fellow drivers, Rolando and Nelson, went to see him to redeem a cell phone the latter had pawned to accused-appellant Velasquez. Then, someone repeatedly knocked at his door and when accused-appellant Velasquez asked who it was, no one answered. Suddenly, said persons who refused to identify themselves barged into the house of accused-appellant Velasquez by kicking the door open and once inside, they drew their firearms and pointed the same to the accused. The intruders turned out to be Police Officers Carrera, Lacangan, and Amangao, who were there to serve a search warrant on accused-appellant Velasquez.
Accused-appellant Velasquez was bodily searched but nothing was found on him. Nevertheless, the police operatives continued their operations inside the bedroom of accused-appellant Velasquez. When SPO1 Lacangan was inside the bedroom, he summoned accused-appellant Velasquez and presented to him something wrapped in a bag. They proceeded to the living room and accused-appellant Velasquez was shown what was found inside his room, a kilo of marijuana. SPO1 Lacangan was allegedly holding the marijuana when he entered the room of accused-appellant Velasquez.
Accused-appellant Velasquez claimed that when the conduct of the search started, barangay officials Udani and Somera were not yet present. They appeared only later, about 5 minutes after the search had started.20
WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered finding the accused Jimmy Velasquez y Biyala GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt in both cases. In Criminal Case No. 17945-R, the accused is sentenced to Reclusion Perpetua and to pay a fine of P500,000.00; in Criminal Case No. 17946-R, the accused is sentenced to a prison term of six (6) months of arresto mayor to two (2) years, four (4) months of prision correccional, and to pay the costs.23
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the September 17, 2002 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 61, in Criminal Case Nos. 17945-R and 17946-R, is hereby AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to Section 13 (c), Rule 124 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure as amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC dated September 28, 2004, which became effective on October 15, 2004, this judgment of the Court of Appeals may be appealed to the Supreme Court by notice of appeal, filed with the Clerk of Court of the Court of Appeals.26
1) There are irregularities in the performance of the duties of the officers;27
2) There are numerous discrepancies in testimonies of the [prosecution] witnesses;28 and
3) The court a quo erred in finding accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt.29
I
The search was conducted by the police officers in the presence of appellant and his wife as well as the two barangay kagawad.II
Appellant waived whatever objection he had to the implementation of the search warrant.III
The court a quo correctly convicted appellant for violation of the dangerous drugs act, as amended.30
Q Was the door of the house open when Mody Carrera knocked at the door? A No, sir, the door was forced open because there were three (3) persons inside the house and they do not like to open the door, sir. x x x x Q And how was the door forced open? A Mody Carrera kicked the door, sir. Q And the door was opened? A Yes, sir. Q After the door was opened, what happen next? A They frisked the 3 male persons inside the house, sir. Q Who searched or frisked the 3 male persons inside the house? A Mody Carrera and his companions, sir. x x x x Q Was there anything found from the possession of the 3 male persons when they were frisked or bodily searched by Officer Carrera and his companions? A Yes, sir they were able to find pieces of shabu a white substance in cellophane sachet with money, sir. Q Where did Officer Carrera and his companions find the pieces of shabu and money? A From the pocket, sir. Q Whose pocket in particular? A Pocket of Jimmy Velasquez, sir.32 Q After you saw the CIDG Officer found the two (2) plastic sachets from the front left pocket of the pants, what happened next? A They went to search the room, sir. Q And what happened during the search of the room? A We saw the 1 brick of suspected dried marijuana leaves at the back of the door, sir. Q You said we saw the brick of the marijuana leaves at the back of the door of Jimmy Velasquez? A All of us, sir. Q Including accused Jimmy Velasquez? A Yes, he was also there, sir. x x x x Q After that what happened next? A There was another search and we were able to recover 36 white rolling paper, sir. Q What else? A 1 tooter under the bed, sir. x x x x Q Aside from that what else? A We found at the sala beside the dining table hang a 4 plastic bag containing white crystalline substance, sir. Q Aside from that what else was found? A 1 lighter at the center table, sir. Q Aside from that what else if any? A 3 small used plastic sachet, sir.33
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 drug subject to the provisions of Section 20 hereof.
x x x x
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.
x x x x
Sec. 20. Application of Penalties, Confiscation and Forfeiture of the Proceeds 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:
1. 40 grams or more of opium;
2. 40 grams or more of morphine;
3. 200 grams or more of shabu or methylamphetamine hydrochloride;
4. 40 grams or more of heroin;
5. 750 grams or more of Indian hemp or marijuana;
6. 50 grams or more of marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil;
7. 40 grams or more of cocaine or cocaine hydrocholoride; or
8. In the case of other dangerous drugs, the quantity of which is far beyond therapeutic requirements, as determined and promulgated by the Dangerous Drugs Board, after public consultations/hearings conducted for the purpose.
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.
Endnotes:
1 Rollo, pp. 2-15; penned by Associate Justice Vicente Q. Roxas with Associate Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., concurring.
2 CA rollo, pp. 23-29; penned by Judge Antonio C. Reyes.
3 Id. at 23.
4 Id. at 13.
5 Id. at 33-34.
6 TSN, December 5, 2000.
7 TSN, December 18, 2000 and January 8 and 9, 2001.
8 TSN, February 28, 2001 and March 6, 2001.
9 TSN, April 17 and 18, 2001. In the records, he is sometimes referred to as “PO1 Lacangan.”
10 TSN, March 14, 2001 and August 14, 2001.
11 Rollo, pp. 5-6.
12 Records, pp. 22-23; Exhibit A.
13 Id. at 5-6; Exhibit M.
14 Id. at 24-25; Exhibits B and C.
15 Id. at 26; Exhibit D.
16 Id. at 27; Exhibits K and L.
17 Id. at 17-18.
18 Id. at 46; Exhibit N.
19 TSN, June 17, 2002.
20 Rollo, p. 6.
21 TSN, January 8, 2001, p. 17.
22 Records, pp. 169-175.
23 CA rollo, p. 29.
24 G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640.
25 CA rollo, p. 103.
26 Rollo, p. 14.
27 CA rollo, p. 79.
28 Id. at 83.
29 Id. at 84.
30 Id. at 119-120.
31 People v. Lagata, 452 Phil. 846, 853 (2003).
32 TSN, March 14, 2001, pp. 7-9.
33 TSN, August 14, 2001, pp. 3-4.
34 People v. Johnson, 401 Phil. 734, 750 (2000).
35 People v. Bongalon, 425 Phil. 96, 114 (2002).
36 People v. Ambrosio, 471 Phil. 241, 267 (2004).
37 People v. Tuan, G.R. No. 176066, August 11, 2010, 628 SCRA 226, 242.
38 People v. Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, July 28, 2008, 560 SCRA 430, 444.