Republic of the Philippines

Court of Appeals
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE CA-G.R. CR HC NO. 08425

PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, MEMBERS:

SALAZAR-FERNANDO, R.A., J.,

CHAIRPERSON,
LAZARO-JAVIER, A.C. &
- versus - AZCARRAGA-JACOB,M.C., JJ.

Promulgated:
HARESH JESUAL,
Accused-Appellant. 28 January 2019

DECISION

AZCARRAGA-JACOB, J.:

Before the Court is an appeal from the Joint Judgment1 dated 02 June
2016 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 19, First Judicial Region, Bangui,
Ilocos Norte, in Criminal Cases Nos. 2207-19, 2208-19 and 2240-19.
Accused-appellant Haresh Jesual (appellant) was adjudged guilty of
1 Rollo, pp. 42-72.
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 08425 Page 2 of 16
Decision

unauthorized sale and possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride or

shabu, a dangerous drug, in violation of Sections 52 and 113, Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. No. 9165), otherwise known as the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 in Criminal Cases Nos. 2207-
19 and 2208-19 while in Criminal Case No. 2240-19, he was acquitted of
the charge pertaining to violation of Republic Act No. 1059614.

The Antecedents

As borne out by the case records, the accusatory portions of the

Information[s] charging appellant read as follows:

Criminal Case No. 2207-19:5

That on or about May 19, 2014, in the municipality of

Pagudpud, province of Ilocos Norte, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and knowingly sell
one heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing
methamphetamine hydrochloride commonly known as “shabu”, a
dangerous drug, weighing 0.0380 gram (SCHJ1) worth Php1,000.00
to an agent of the Provincial Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations
Task Group (PAIDSOTG) acting as a poseur-buyer, without any
authority or license from the appropriate government agency to do
so.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Criminal Case No. 2208-19:6

That on or about May 19, 2014, in the municipality of

Pagudpud, province of Ilocos Norte, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did
2 Sec. 5. Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs.
3 Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs.
4 Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act.
5 Case Folder for Criminal Case No. 2207-19, p. 1.
6 Case Folder for Criminal Case No. 2208-19, p. 1.
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 08425 Page 3 of 16
Decision

then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and knowingly have

in his possession, control and custody twelve (12) pieces of
transparent plastic sachets each containing methamphetamine
hydrochloride commonly known as “shabu”, a dangerous drug with
an aggregate weight of 0.4614 grams, without the necessary license
or authority from the appropriate government agency or authority to
do so.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Criminal Case No. 2240-19:7

That on or about May 19, 2014, in the municipality of

Pagudpud, Ilocos Norte, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession, control
and custody one (1) pistol cal. 45 NORINCO bearing Serial No.
8803774-09-241 with chambered ammunition containing eight (8)
live ammunitions and one holster, without first securing the
necessary license or authority to possess the same from appropriate
government agency.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Appellant entered a negative plea of guilt for all offenses charged

against him.8 Thereafter, joint trial on the merits ensued.

In its Brief9, the Office of Solicitor General adopted the trial court’s
narration of facts from the prosecution's standpoint, as follows:

Acting on an informant's tip, a buy-bust team was formed

composed of PSI Licudan, the team leader of PAIDSOTG, PO1
Sonny Cuaresma as the poseur-buyer, PO3 Benigno, PO2
Pasamonte and PO1 Rigos. PSI Licudan conducted the initial
briefing at about 5:30 o'clock in the morning of May 19, 2014 and
the subject is herein accused, a resident of Pagudpud, Ilocos Norte.
PO1 Cuaresma was designated the police poseur-buyer while the
7 Rollo, p. 43.
8 Certificate of Arraignment, Case Folder for Criminal Case No. 2207-19, p. 36.
9 Rollo, pp. 85-87.
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 08425 Page 4 of 16
Decision

others already named policemen were designated arresting officers.

PSI Licudan produced the marked money consisting of one (1) One
Thousand Peso bill. PO1 Cuaresma placed his initials “SC” on the
forehead of Jose Abad Santos on the marked bill bearing serial
number GP 811287.

After the briefing, they proceeded to Pagudpud for the

execution of the operation. PO1 Cuaresma and PO1 Rigos boarded
on [sic] a KIA van while PSI Licudan, PO3 Benigno and PO2
Pasamonte [were] on board another vehicle which is a Toyota
Corolla. The team trooped towards the provincial road within the
vicinity of Brgy. Baduang, Pagudpud per instruction of the team
leader, PSI Licudan[,] in order to fetch the informant. Upon reaching
the agreed place, the civilian informant proceeded to the KIA van
and another briefing was conducted inside said vehicle. Then, PSI
Licudan instructed the informant to order shabu worth One
Thousand (P1,000.00) Pesos. So the informant texted the accused
and the latter agreed. Accused informed the informant that he is
going to leave his cell phone and he is going to a vulcanizing shop
because his motorcycle had flat tires. PSI Licudan ordered that they
will be using the KIA van and posted the said van at the other side of
the road while PO1 Cuaresma with the informant used the red
Toyota Corolla. With the accused at the Curammeng's vulcanizing
shop at Brgy. 2, Pagudpud, the two proceeded to said place. Both
alighted and went inside the vulcanizing shop. While inside, he saw
a man clad in a yellow shirt and the informant told him that he is
their subject. The two approached herein accused and the latter said
to them, “Is he the one you are referring”? Accused retorted, “You
have to pay first” and the informant told PO1 Cuaresma, “where is
the payment'? With such suggestion, PO1 Cuaresma gave the
payment. Accused after receiving the marked money, he placed the
same in his pocket and when he withdrew his hands he was already
holding a white plastic sachet containing white crystalline granules.
Accused handed the sachet to PO1 Cuaresma where the latter
eventually removed his bull cap, being the pre-arranged signal to
indicate the consummation of the transaction.

The arresting policemen who were inside the KIA van rushed
in and they assisted in the arrest of the accused. After subduing the
accused, PO1 Cuaresma bodily searched him which led to the
recovery of a fortune cigarette box containing twelve (12) plastic
sachets containing white shabu and one cal. 45 with magazine
inserted fully loaded with chamber loaded tucked in his short, the
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 08425 Page 5 of 16
Decision

marked money and Three Hundred (P300.00) pesos. In the further

search unto his back pack and motor vehicle, the team found some
personal belongings and from the motorcycle, they recovered seven
(7) live ammunitions for cal. 45.

Markings and inventory were done at the crime scene

personally by PO1 Cuaresma in the presence of two (2) barangay
officials, Brgy. Kag. Rosendo Lagundino and Brgy. Kag. Rogelio
Villanueva. They also took photographs of the items confiscated.
After which, the team trooped to the municipal police station. PO1
Cuaresma was in custody of the seized items and brought the same
to the PAIDSOTG. It was at that office that the request for
laboratory examination was prepared and he submitted the
specimens to the crime laboratory received by Police Inspector
Amiely Ann Navarro.

In Chemistry Report No. D-119-2014-IN dated May 19,

2014, Police Inspector Amiely Ann Navarro, a forensic chemist,
found that the thirteen (13) specimen submitted to her were
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu.
Police Inspector Navarro personally received the said items from the
representative of PAIDSOTG, PO1 Sonny Cuaresma at about 3:20
pm on even date. The specimen subject of the buy-bust transaction
was marked “SCHJ1” while the specimens labeled “B” to “M” were
the twelve heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets subject of the
illegal possession case (Criminal Case No. 2208). The aggregate
weight of the twelve (12) plastic sachets subject of the illegal
possession case was .4614 gram or less than 1 gram.

On the other hand, appellant narrated his defense in his Brief 10 as

follows:

On May 19, 2014 at around 9 o'clock in the morning,

accused was then at the Curammeng's Vulcanizing shop, which is
situated at Pob. 2, Pagudpud, Ilocos Norte, to have his tire fix[ed].
Then a red car arrived where its occupants alighted and proceeded to
him. They introduced themselves as police officers and they pointed
their gun to him. He was able to know some of the Police Officers as
Police Officer Cuaresma and Rigos. The Police Officers handcuffed
accused. Accused was surprised and asked the police why they
handcuffed him. Instead of answering accused, the police officers
10 Rollo, p. 38.
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 08425 Page 6 of 16
Decision

placed a sachet of shabu on the wooded tool box together with a

firearm. Then the police officers frisked accused and searched his
motorcycle. After that, barangay officials arrived.

On 02 June 2016, the trial court rendered the questioned Joint

Judgment11 the dispositive portion whereof reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused Haresh E.

Jesual, having been found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
Violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165
(Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), is hereby sentenced
as follows:

a) In Criminal Case No. 2207-19 (Violation of Section 5,

Article II, RA 9165) accused Haresh Jesual is sentenced to suffer the
indivisible penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and a fine of Five
Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php500,000.00);

b) In Criminal Case No. 2208-19 (Violation of Section 11,

Article II, RA 9165) accused Haresh Jesual is sentenced to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to
twenty (20) years and a fine of Php300,000.00) without subsidiary
imprisonment.

The penalties for imprisonment in both cases for accused

Haresh Jesual shall be served simultaneously.

c) In Criminal Case No. 2240-19 (Violation of Republic Act

105961 or otherwise known the Comprehensive Firearms and
Ammunitions Act) accused Haresh E. Jesual is hereby found Not
Guilty and is hereby ACQUITTED based on reasonable doubt.

The dangerous drugs as well as the firearm subject matter of

the three (3) instant cases are hereby ordered confiscated and
forfeited in favor of the government (Sec. 20, RA 9165) to be
disposed in accordance with the provisions of Section 21 of the
same Act.

SO ORDERED.

11 Supra note at 1.
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 08425 Page 7 of 16
Decision

Hence, the present appeal for the judgment of conviction in Criminal

Cases Nos. 2207-19 and 2208-19 where appellant claims that:

THE RTC GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT DECIDED THAT

ACCUSED-APPELLANT IS GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT OF THE CRIMES BEING APPEALED.12

The Court’s Ruling

At the core of this controversy is the lone issue of whether or not the
prosecution was able to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Jurisprudence has firmly entrenched that in the prosecution for illegal

sale of dangerous drugs, the following essential elements must be proven:
(1) that the transaction or sale took place; (2) the corpus delicti or the illicit
drug was presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller were
identified. Implicit in all these is the need for proof that the transaction or
sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the
confiscated prohibited or regulated drug as evidence.13

In the case at hand, the foregoing elements were convincingly

established by the prosecution's evidence, notably the testimony of PO1
Sonny Cuaresma (PO1 Cuaresma), the police officer who acted as the
poseur buyer. PO1 Cuaresma positively identified appellant as the person
who sold to him a white crystalline substance believed to be shabu in the
entrapment operation conducted by his group. PO1 Cuaresma testified, to
wit:

Q: So after that second briefing conducted by your superior

what happened next, Mr. Witness?
A: PSI Licudan instructed the civilian informant to order worth
one thousand (Php1,000.00) pesos of shabu, sir.

Q: And how will that informant be able to contact the subject

12 Rollo, p. 38.
13 People v. Salcena, G.R. No. 192261, 16 November 2011.
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 08425 Page 8 of 16
Decision

person?
A: He texted him, sir.

Q: So what was the result of the contact made by the informant

to the subject?
A: The subject person agreed, sir, after that we planned how to
implement the buy bust operation.

Q: How did you come to know that the subject eventually

agreed to have the transaction?
A: We were all inside the van, sir, we could hear what was the
conversation between PSI Licudan and the civilian
informant.

Q: So after the contact and the preparation what happened next,

Mr. Witness?
A: The subject informed the civilian informant that he is going
to leave his cellphone and he is going to a vulcanizing shop
because his motorcycle had flat tires.

Q: So what did you do upon receiving that message from the

subject person?
A: PSI Licudan instructed that they are going to use the white
Kia Van and position the van at the other side of the road
while we used the red Toyota Corolla to proceed, sir.

Q: So eventually, where did you directly proceed?

A: To the vulcanizing shop, sir.

xxx xxx xxx

Q: So upon reaching that particular place in Pagudpud, what did

you do?
A: After we saw the white Kia Van positioned at the other side
of the road, sir, we also proceeded and then we alighted from
the car and then went inside the vulcanizing shop.

Q: So when you reached that vulcanizing shop the white Kia

Van was already there, is that correct?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: So upon reaching that place you alighted from the vehicle

you road [sic] on?
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 08425 Page 9 of 16
Decision

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And you proceeded where?

A: Inside the vulcanizing shop, sir.

Q: You mentioned inside the vulcanizing shop so it presupposes

that the vulcanizing shop is enclosed?
A: Yes, sir, it has fence.

Q: So upon entering the vulcanizing shop, what did you do?

A: I saw a man in yellow shirt, sir, and the informant informed
me that he is the subject person.

Q: So upon being made known by the informant the identity of

the subject person, what did you do next, Mr. Witness?
A: We both approached Haresh Jesual, sir, and then Haresh
Jesual said to the informant, “is he the one you were
referring”? And he also said, “you have to pay first” and the
informant told me, “where is the payment”? And so I gave
the payment, sir.

Q: So after receiving the one thousand (Php1,000) peso bill to

the subject, what did the latter do to the bill you handed to
him?
A: He placed it in his pocket and when he withdrew his hands
from his pocket he was already holding a white plastic sachet
containing alleged shabu inside, sir.

Q: So upon receiving that plastic sachet coming from the

accused, what did you do?
A: I removed my ball cap, sir, because that was the pre-arranged
signal when we had the briefing in Baduang.

Q: And what would indicate the execution of that pre-arranged

signal?
A: That the drug deal has already been consummated, sir.

Q: So what transpired after you had already executed the pre-

arranged signal?
A: My companions in the white Kia van rushed in, sir, and we
identified ourselves as police officers

Q: And what did you do with the accused?

CA-G.R. CR HC No. 08425 Page 10 of 16
Decision

A: After they handcuffed him, sir, I bodily searched [him].

Q: What was the result of the body frisking?

A: I recovered a fortune cigarette box containing twelve (12)
plastic sachets containing alleged shabu and calibre 45
tucked on his short, sir.

Q: What else if any?

A: His personal money, three hundred (P300) pesos, sir.

Q: So can you again enumerate the items you found in the

possession of the accused after the body searched?
A: The twelve (12) plastic sachets containing alleged shabu
placed in a fortune cigarette box, caliber 45 with magazine
inserted fully loaded with chamber loaded and the buy bust
money used, personal money.

Q: So after recovering those items from the possession of the

accused what further actions did you do, if any?
A: I also searched his back pack and the motor vehicle he used,
sir.

Q: And what was the result of your search on the back pack and
the motorcycle?
A: From his back pack, sir, we found personal belongings and
from the motorcycle we recovered seven (7) live
ammunitions for calibre 45.

xxx xxx x x x.14

The Court does not find any untrustworthy or implausible statement in

the testimony of prosecution witness Cuaresma.

Anent the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, this Court is

likewise convinced that the prosecution was able to prove all its elements, to
wit: (a) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be
a prohibited or regulated drug; (b) such possession is not authorized by law;
and (c) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession
of the drug.15
14 TSN dated 10 September 2015, pp. 5-8.
15 People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 205821, 01 October 2014.
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 08425 Page 11 of 16
Decision

PO1 Cuaresma stated that after appellant was arrested, he frisked

appellant and recovered twelve (12) other plastic sachets from appellant's
pants. Undoubtedly, the frisking was legally authorized as a search
incidental to the lawful arrest of appellant for evidence in the commission of
illegal drug pushing. Forensic Chemist Amiely Ann Luis Navarro (FC
Navarro) certified that each of the sachets contained different shabu of
different weights.16 Appellant failed to discharge the burden of disproving
knowledge or animus possidendi over the other plastic sachets containing
shabu found on his pants. Appellant neither offered any explanation why he
was in custody of the said substance nor did he present any authorization to
possess them. It is well-settled that “mere possession of a regulated drug per
se constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi
sufficient to convict an accused absent a satisfactory explanation of such
possession”.17 Consequently, for failure of the appellant to proffer a valid
excuse or explanation regarding his possession of the illegal drugs, the trial
court’s findings of guilt of the crime charged against him deserves high
accord and respect.

In cases of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the

dangerous drug seized from the accused constitutes the corpus delicti of the
offense. Thus, it is of utmost importance that the integrity and identity of the
seized drugs must be shown to have been duly preserved. The chain of
custody rule performs this function as it ensures that unnecessary doubts
concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.18

The prosecution was likewise able to establish the chain of custody of

the confiscated items which were found to be shabu. As jurisprudence
prescribes, the following are the links that must be established in the chain
of custody in cases of illegal drugs: (1) the seizure and marking, if
practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the
apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the
apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) the turnover by the
investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory
16 Chemistry Report No. D-119-2014-IN, Case Folder for Criminal Case No. 2207-19, p. 18.
17 Abuan v. People, G.R. No. 168773, 27 October 2006.
18 People v. Ismael, G.R. No. 208093, 20 February 2017.
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 08425 Page 12 of 16
Decision

examination; and (4) the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug
seized from the forensic chemist to the court.19

In the case at hand, there was substantial compliance with the law and
the integrity of the drugs seized from appellant was preserved. PO1
Cuaresma was able to successfully buy from appellant one plastic sachet
containing shabu during the buy-bust operation and to recover from him
twelve (12) other plastic sachets also containing shabu after the sale.
Immediately after confiscation, PO1 Cuaresma personally marked the pieces
of evidence at the place of arrest. Physical inventory and photographs of the
seized items were also taken in the presence of appellant, barangay
kagawads Rosendo Lagundino and Rogelio Villanueva. PO1 Cuaresma
remained in the possession of the confiscated items up to the time he,
together with the other police officers and appellant reached the police
station. Police Senior Inspector Adriano C. Licudan, Jr. prepared the
necessary endorsement for laboratory examination. Immediately thereafter,
PO1 Cuaresma personally brought the letter request for examination,
together with the seized items, to the Ilocos Norte Crime Laboratory, Laoag
City. The test on the seized items yielded positive result for the presence of
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug as conducted by FC
Navarro, and as shown in the Chemistry Report No. D-119-2014-IN 20. The
regulated drug seized from appellant and examined in the crime laboratory
was subsequently offered as evidence in court.

Nonetheless, appellant asseverates that it was improbable and

incredible for him to have boldly peddled the prohibited drugs in a
vulcanizing shop and in the presence of other customers of the shop.

The Supreme Court has consistently pronounced that drug pushers sell
their prohibited articles to any prospective customer, be he a stranger or not,
in private, as well as in public places, even in the daytime. 21 Indeed, drug
pushers have become increasingly daring, dangerous and, worse, openly
defiant of the law. Hence, what matters is not the existing familiarity
between the buyer and the seller or the time and venue of the sale, but the
19 People v. Kamad, G.R. No. 174198, 19 January 2010.
20 Case Folder for Criminal Case No. 2207-19, p. 18.
21 People v. Wu Tuan Yuan @ Peter Co, G.R. No.150663, 05 February 2004.
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 08425 Page 13 of 16
Decision

fact of agreement and the acts constituting sale and delivery of the
prohibited drugs.22

Finally, appellant asserts that the buy-bust operation was conducted

without first conducting a surveillance or test-buy to confirm the veracity of
the report made by the informant which prompted the operation.

Unfortunately, appellant’s excuse is undeserving of consideration. The

Supreme Court in Quinicot v. People23 said that the conduct of the buy-bust
routine is within the discretion of the police officers, as long as the
operatives are accompanied by their informant, thus:

Settled is the rule that the absence of a prior surveillance or

test buy does not affect the legality of the buy-bust operation. There
is no textbook method of conducting buy-bust operations. The Court
has left to the discretion of police authorities the selection of
effective means to apprehend drug dealers. A prior surveillance,
much less a lengthy one, is not necessary, especially where the
police operatives are accompanied by their informant during the
entrapment. Flexibility is a trait of good police work. We have held
that when time is of the essence, the police may dispense with the
need for prior surveillance. In the instant case, having been
accompanied by the informant to the person who was peddling the
dangerous drugs, the policemen need not have conducted any prior
surveillance before they undertook the buy-bust operation.

On the other hand, appellant can only set up the defense of denial. The
mere fact that appellant denied that a buy-bust operation ever took place
does not render the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses less credible. It
is well-settled that as between the positive declarations of prosecution
witnesses and the negative statements of appellant, the former deserves more
credence and weight.24 In cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs
Act, the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, who are police officers, are
given credence for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a

22 People v. Requiz, G.R. No. 130922, 19 November 1999.

23 G.R. No. 179700, 22 June 2009
24 People v. Amante, G.R. Nos. 149414-15, 18 November 2002, 392 SCRA 152, 167; People v. Alvero,
G.R. Nos. 134536-38, 05 April 2000, 329 SCRA 737, 756.
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 08425 Page 14 of 16
Decision

regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary. 25 We find no such

evidence here.

Besides, denial is inherently a weak defense and cannot prevail over

the positive identification by the prosecution. Negative and self-serving,
denial deserves no weight in law when unsubstantiated by clear and
convincing evidence.26 Corollarily, the Supreme Court has invariably viewed
the defense of denial and frame-up with disfavor, for it can easily be
concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in prosecutions for
violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. In order to prosper, the defense of
denial and frame-up must be proved with strong and convincing evidence. 27
In the case at bar, We find no reason in this case to tear apart the trial court’s
reliance on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official
functions of the police operatives who effected the arrest on appellant.

It is likewise significant to note that appellant did not ascribe any

improper or malicious motive to the prosecution witnesses. Hence, there is
no justification to doubt their credibility.

With this discourse, the court a quo erred not in convicting the
appellant of the crimes charged.

With respect to the penalties imposed in Criminal Case No. 2207-19,

the trial court was correct in imposing the penalty of life imprisonment and a
fine of Php 500,000.00 as the circumstances herein warrant the same. Under
Republic Act No. 9165, the unauthorized sale of shabu carries with it the
penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five Hundred
Thousand Pesos (Php 500,000.00) to Ten Million Pesos (Php
10,000,000.00).

On the penalty imposed in Criminal Case No. 2208-19 for illegal

possession of drugs, the penalty of imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day to 20
years and a fine ranging from Php 300,000.00 to Php 400,000.00 are to be
imposed, if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of
25 Ampatuan v. People, G.R. No. 183676, 22 June 2011.
26 People v. Honrado, G.R. No. 182197, 27 February 2012.
27 People v. Felipe, G.R. No. 191754, 11 April 2011.
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 08425 Page 15 of 16
Decision

shabu. Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law28, as applied to an offense

punishable by a special law, the court shall sentence the accused to an
indeterminate sentence expressed at a range whose maximum term shall not
exceed the maximum fixed by the special law, the minimum term shall not
be less than the minimum prescribed. What is involved in this case is the
aggregate weight of 0.4614 gram, that is, less than 5 grams. Thus, he was
properly meted the penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years
and one (1) day to twenty (20) years, and a fine of Three Hundred Thousand
Pesos (Php300,000.00) being within the range imposed by law.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby

DENIED.

Accordingly, the assailed Joint Judgment dated 02 June 2016 of the

Regional Trial Court, First Judicial Region, Branch 19, Bangui, Ilocos Norte
in Criminal Case Nos. 2207-19 and 2208-19 finding appellant Haresh Jesual
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violations of Section 5 and
11, Artcile II of R.A. 9165 is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

MARIE CHRISTINE AZCARRAGA-JACOB

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

REMEDIOS A. SALAZAR-FERNANDO AMY C. LAZARO-JAVIER

Associate Justice Associate Justice

28 See Section 1, Act No. 4103.

CA-G.R. CR HC No. 08425 Page 16 of 16
Decision

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby

certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court.

REMEDIOS A. SALAZAR-FERNANDO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division