G.R. No. 198820 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. RENATO LAPASARAN Y MEDINILLA a.k.a. "MAO," ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, and the foregoing considered, the Court finds that: 1. [Appellant] Renato Lapasaran y Medinilla is GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of possessing 0.07 gram of methylamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu, a dangerous drug, without authority in violation of Section 11, 3 rd paragraph, Article II of RA No. 9165, as alleged in the Information in Criminal Case No. 15081-D-TG and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of TWELVE (12) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY of reclusion temporal , as minimum, up to TWENTY (20) YEARS of reclusion temporal , as maximum, to pay a fine of P300,000.00 and to suffer the accessory penalties provided for by law; and, 2. [Appellant] Renato Lapasaran y Medinilla is also GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of selling 0.08 gram of methylamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu, a dangerous drug, without authority in violation of Section 5, 1st paragraph, Article II of RA No. 9165, as alleged in the Information in Criminal Case No. 15082-D-TG and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, to pay a fine of P500,000.00 and to suffer the accessory penalties provided for by law. With costs de officio . [7] On February 25, 2009, appellant, thru his counsel, filed his notice of appeal. [8] On August 19, 2009, the Court of Appeals required appellants counsel to submit his Brief. [9] However, counsel failed to file the appellants Brief. The Court of Appeals thus resolved to direct the Public Attorneys Office to appoint a counsel de oficio to represent appellant. [10] Appellant asserts that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt his commission of the crimes charged. He argues that no testimony was presented by the prosecution to attest to the police officers compliance with Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and to establish that the chain of custody rule had been complied with. [11] The Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the RTC decision stating: WHEREFORE , premises considered, the appeal is DISMISSED and the assailed Joint Decision dated February 3, 2009 of the RTC, Branch 267, Pasig City (Taguig City Station) in Criminal Case Nos. 15081-D-TG and 15082-D-TG is hereby AFFIRMED. [12] Hence, this appeal. Appellant reiterates that there was non-compliance with Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. Hence, his lone assignment of error is stated in the following manner: THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE PROSECUTIONS FAILURE TO PROVE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THE CORPUS DELICTI OF THE OFFENSES CHARGED. [13] The appeal must be dismissed for lack of merit. Sections 5(1) and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, provides: SEC. 5 . Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals . - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thou