SECOND
DIVISION
PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G. R. No. 107623
June 30, 1995
-versus-
ANGELITA
MANALO y DELA PAZ,
Accused-Appellant.
D
E C I S I O N
PUNO, J.:
Angelita Manalo
y Dela Pat was charged
in two [2] separate informations before the Regional Trial Court of
Pasig,
Metro Manila [Branch CLVIII] with two [2] offenses, viz: sale
of
0.02 grams of "shabu," a prohibited drug, without license or authority
and for possession of prohibited drugs, but found her guilty beyond
reasonable
doubt for illegal sale of 0.02 grams of "shabu". She was thus sentenced[1]
to suffer the penalty for life imprisonment, to pay a fine of thirty
thousand
pesos and to pay the costs. This decision was affirmed by this Court in
G. R. No. 107623, entitled People v. Angelita Manalo, on February 23,
1994.[2]
In due time, of
said Decision accused moved for
a reconsideration. On April 29, 1994, she filed an addendum to her
motion
for reconsideration, praying for a retroactive application of the
provisions
of Republic Act 7659 which would reduce the penalty of imprisonment
imposed
upon her. After finding that no substantial argument had, been
raised
by accused to warrant the reversal of the Decision, the Court denied
accused's
motion for reconsideration.[3]
Accused's addendum to her motion for reconsideration was noted by this
Court without action, the decision denying the motion for
reconsideration
having attained finality.[4]
On July 29, 1994,
the Court came out with its
interpretation and reconciliation of the conflicting provisions of R.
A.
7659 in the case of People v. Martin Simon Y Sunga.[5]
Pursuant to our ruling in the case of Simon, that even if the judgment
which could be modified by the reduced penalties under R. A. 7659 has
become
final and executory, "practice, procedure and pragmatic considerations
would warrant and necessitate the matter being brought to the judicial
authorities for relief under a writ of habeas corpus we hereby treat
the
addendum to accused-appellant's motion for reconsideration as a
petition
for writ of habeas corpus.
In the case at
bench, the proper penalty to be,
imposed for the illegal sale of 0.02 grams of "shabu" would be prision
correccional, pursuant to the second paragraph of Section 20 of R. A.
6425,
as amended by Section 17 of R. A. 7659 and in consonance with the
doctrine
laid down in People v. Simon, supra. Further, applying the
Indeterminate
Sentence Law, the imposable penalty should be the indeterminate
sentence
of SIX [6] MONTHS OF ARRESTO MAYOR as the minimum to FOUR [4] YEARS AND
TWO [2] MONTHS OF PRISION CORRECCIONAL, as the maximum.cralaw:red
IN VIEW WHEREOF,
the decision of the trial court
convicting accused-appellant ANGELITA MANALO Y DELA PAZ for the sale of
0.02 grams of "shabu" is hereby AFFIRMED, with the modification that
the
penalty of imprisonment imposable on accused-appellant should be the
indeterminate
sentence of six [6] months of arresto mayor as minimum, to four (4)
years
and two [2] months of prision correccional as maximum.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Narvasa, C.J.,
Regalado and Mendoza,
JJ., concur.cralaw:red
_________________________________
Endnotes
[1]
Decision, dated September 28, 1992, Rollo, at p. 54.
[2]
Rollo, pp. 101-116.
[3]
Resolution, dated May 11, 1994, Rollo, p. 128.
[4]
Resolution, dated June 22, 1994, Rollo, p. 133.
[5]
G. R. No. 93028, dated July 29, 1994, 234 SCRA 555, at 571; citing the
case of Harden v. Director of Prisons, No. L-2349, October 22, 1948, 81
Phil 741. |
