January 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > January 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 189463 : January 20, 2010] EDWIN FERRER Y PAED AND FRANKLIN CASTRO Y QUILANG VERSUS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.:
[G.R. No. 189463 : January 20, 2010]
EDWIN FERRER Y PAED AND FRANKLIN CASTRO Y QUILANG VERSUS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 20 January 2010:
G.R. No. 189463 - EDWIN FERRER y PAED and FRANKLIN CASTRO y QUILANG versus PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.
Petitioners Edwin Ferrer y Paed and Franklin Castro y Quilang were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 11, Article 2, RA[1] 9165 (illegal possession of 0.03 gram and 0.06 gram, respectively, of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu") by the Regional Trial court (RTC) of Caloocan City, Branch 123. They were sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for 12 years and 1 day as minimum to 13 years and 8 months as maximum and to pay a fine of P300,000.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed their conviction but modified the penalty to 6 years and 1 day to 12 years of prision mayor as minimum to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum. Reconsideration was denied.
Hence, this petition.[2]
A review of the assailed CA decision and resolution and of the RTC decision, as well as of petitioner's allegations, issues and arguments, shows that the CA committed no reversible error in affirming petitioner's conviction, except that the CA's modification of the penalty should be corrected and the penalty originally imposed by the RTC should be reinstated.
Illegal possession of dangerous drugs is punishable with imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day to 20 years, if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five grams.[3] Petitioners Ferrer and Castro were found guilty of possessing 0.03 gram and 0.06 gram of shabu, respectively. Applying the provision of the Indeterminate Sentence Law with regard to violations of special laws,[4] the maximum term of the penalty shall not exceed the maximum fixed by law (in this case, 20 years) while the minimum shall not be less than the minimum fixed by law (in this case, 12 years and 1 day). The CA erred in imposing a minimum term that was less than the minimum fixed by law. It wrongly applied the provision of the Indeterminate Sentence Law with regard to violations of the Revised Penal Code when it imposed a minimum term within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by RA 9165.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is hereby DENIED for failure to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in the challenged decision and resolution as to warrant the exercise of the Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
The Court adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the May 27, 2009 decision and September 9, 2009 resolution of CA in CA-G.R. CR No. 31323 and AFFIRMS the said decision finding petitioners Edwin Ferrer y Paed and Franklin Castro y Quilang guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violating Section 11, Article 2 of RA 9165 with modification as to the penalty in that they are sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for 12 years and 1 day as minimum to 13 years and 8 months as maximum and to pay a fine of P300,000.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio (designated additional member per Special Order No. 818 dated 18 January 2010 in lieu of Hon. Jose C. Mendoza, who is on leave), Hon. Renato C. Corona, Chairperson, Hon. Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Hon. Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura and Hon. Diosdado M. Peralta, Members, Third Division, this 20th day of January 2010.
G.R. No. 189463 - EDWIN FERRER y PAED and FRANKLIN CASTRO y QUILANG versus PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.
Petitioners Edwin Ferrer y Paed and Franklin Castro y Quilang were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 11, Article 2, RA[1] 9165 (illegal possession of 0.03 gram and 0.06 gram, respectively, of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu") by the Regional Trial court (RTC) of Caloocan City, Branch 123. They were sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for 12 years and 1 day as minimum to 13 years and 8 months as maximum and to pay a fine of P300,000.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed their conviction but modified the penalty to 6 years and 1 day to 12 years of prision mayor as minimum to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum. Reconsideration was denied.
Hence, this petition.[2]
A review of the assailed CA decision and resolution and of the RTC decision, as well as of petitioner's allegations, issues and arguments, shows that the CA committed no reversible error in affirming petitioner's conviction, except that the CA's modification of the penalty should be corrected and the penalty originally imposed by the RTC should be reinstated.
Illegal possession of dangerous drugs is punishable with imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day to 20 years, if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five grams.[3] Petitioners Ferrer and Castro were found guilty of possessing 0.03 gram and 0.06 gram of shabu, respectively. Applying the provision of the Indeterminate Sentence Law with regard to violations of special laws,[4] the maximum term of the penalty shall not exceed the maximum fixed by law (in this case, 20 years) while the minimum shall not be less than the minimum fixed by law (in this case, 12 years and 1 day). The CA erred in imposing a minimum term that was less than the minimum fixed by law. It wrongly applied the provision of the Indeterminate Sentence Law with regard to violations of the Revised Penal Code when it imposed a minimum term within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by RA 9165.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is hereby DENIED for failure to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in the challenged decision and resolution as to warrant the exercise of the Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
The Court adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the May 27, 2009 decision and September 9, 2009 resolution of CA in CA-G.R. CR No. 31323 and AFFIRMS the said decision finding petitioners Edwin Ferrer y Paed and Franklin Castro y Quilang guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violating Section 11, Article 2 of RA 9165 with modification as to the penalty in that they are sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for 12 years and 1 day as minimum to 13 years and 8 months as maximum and to pay a fine of P300,000.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio (designated additional member per Special Order No. 818 dated 18 January 2010 in lieu of Hon. Jose C. Mendoza, who is on leave), Hon. Renato C. Corona, Chairperson, Hon. Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Hon. Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura and Hon. Diosdado M. Peralta, Members, Third Division, this 20th day of January 2010.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Republic Act.
[2] Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
[3] See Section 11, Article II, RA 9165.
[4] Section 1. Hereafter, in imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by the Revised Penal Code, or its amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the said Code, and the minimum which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense; and if the offense is punished by any other law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same. (Emphasis supplied)
