G.R. No. 110592; January 23, 1996
PEOPLE VS. VELASCO
FACTS:
Sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of P20,000.00 by the Regional Trial Court of Manila was appellant Yolanda Velasco y Pamintuan, after having been found guilty of unlawfully selling “shabu,” in violation of Section 15 of Article III in relation to Section 2(e-2), (f), (m), and (o) of Article 1 of “The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972” (R.A. 6425).
Velasco was apprehended in a buy-bust operation in the afternoon of June 28, 1991. Velasco was caught in flagrante delicto as she was handing shabu to a designated poseur-buyer. Five more decks were found in her pockets.
Appellant argues that the court erred in admitting the said decks of shabu as evidence against her since those were acquired through a warrantless arrest. Hence, its inadmissibility. Secondly, appellant questions the RTC’s jurisdiction over the case given the quantity allegedly obtained in her possession.
ISSUES:
1.) Whether or not the decks of shabu are inadmissible as evidence for having been acquired through a warrantless arrest.
2.) Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over the case.
RULING:
1.) Yes. Section 5(a) of Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that an arrest when done lawfully either by a peace officer or any private person may be done if the person to be arrested is actually committing, has committed or attempting to commit an offense.
Appellant was caught in flagrante delicto thus her denial and defense of frame-up cannot be justified under the said provision. Moreover, appellant failed to establish that the members of the buy-bust team are policemen engaged in mulcting or other unscrupulous caprice when they entrapped her.
2.) Yes. The enforcement of R.A. 7659, which amended the penalty provided for in R.A. 6425, agrees with the appellants argument that under the foregoing directive, since the amount of shabu involved in the instant case is only 0.8020 gram, the proper imposable component penalty is prision correccional to be applied in its medium period, in the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances. Applying the indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum shall be taken from the medium of prision correccional, which is two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day, to four (4) years and two (2) months, while the minimum shall be taken from the penalty next lower in degree, which is arresto mayor, the range of which is one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months.”
R.A. 7691 expanded the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. The said act vested these courts with exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six years. However, R.A. 7691 shows that retroactive provisions apply only to civil cases that have not yet reached the pre-trial stage. Neither from an express proviso nor by implication can it be understood as having retroactive application to criminal cases pending or decided by the Regional Trial Courts prior to its effectivity. RTC’s jurisdiction to proceed to the final determination of the cause is not affected by the new legislation.
At the time that the case against appellant was filed, the Regional Trial Court had jurisdiction over the offense charged in as much as Section 39 of R.A 6425. In fine, the jurisdiction of the trial court (RTC) over the case of the appellant was conferred by the aforecited law then in force (R.A. 6425 before amendment) when the information was filed. Jurisdiction attached upon the commencement of the action and could not be ousted by the passage of R.A. 7691 reapportioning the jurisdiction of inferior courts, the application of which to criminal cases is, to stress, prospective in nature.
0 comments:
Post a Comment