7/25/2019 People vs. Somoza

1/7

G.R. No. 197250, July 17, 2013

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.REYNALDO ANDY SO!O"A YHANDAYA,Accused-Appellant.

D E # I S I O N

LEONARDO$DE #ASTRO, J.%

Accused-appellant Reynaldo Andy Somoza appeals from the Decision1dated June 22, 21 of the !ourt of

Appeals in !A-".R. !#$-!R-%.!. &o. '(1 denyin) his appeal from the Joint Jud)ment2dated *ay +, 2'of the Re)ional rial !ourt R! of Duma)uete !ity, $ranch + in !riminal !ase &os. 1'' and 1''1,

/hich found him )uilty of 0iolation of Sections and 11, Article of Repu3lic Act &o. 415, other/ise6no/n as the !omprehensi0e Dan)erous Dru)s Act of 22.

he nformations filed a)ainst accused-appellant in the trial court read7 crala00onlinela/li3rary

. !riminal !ase &o. 1''

hat on or a3out the 21stday of July, 2, in the !ity of Duma)uete, 8hilippines, and /ithin the 9urisdictionof this %onora3le !ourt, the said accused, not 3ein) then authorized 3y la/, did, then and there /illfully,

unla/fully and feloniously sell and deli0er to the &$ poseur 3uyer :one; 1 heat sealed transparent plastic:sachet; containin) a total of . )ram of /hite crystalline su3stance, of *ethamphetamine%ydroc:h;loride, commonly called sha3u, a dan)erous dru).

!ontrary to Sec:.; , Art. of R.A:.; 415.+

. !riminal !ase &o. 1''1

hat on or a3out the 21stday of July, 2, in the !ity of Duma)uete, 8hilippines, and /ithin the 9urisdictionof this %onora3le !ourt, the said accused, not 3ein) then authorized 3y la/, did, then and there /illfully,unla/fully and feloniously possess and 6eep si< 5 pieces of heat sealed transparent plastic sachets

containin) a total of .54 )ram of /hite crystalline su3stance, of *ethamphetamine %ydroc:h;loride,commonly called sha3u, a dan)erous dru).

!ontrary to Sec:.; 11, Art. of R.A:.; 415.(

Accused-appellant pleaded not )uilty to 3oth char)es /hen arrai)ned. After pre-trial /as conducted, trialensued.

he prosecution esta3lished that, sometime durin) the first /ee6 of July 2, the &ational $ureau ofn0esti)ation &$ recei0ed confidential information that accused-appellant is en)a)ed in the repac6in) andsellin) of methamphetamine hydrochloride,commonly 6no/n as shabu, and conductin) his 3usiness in his

residence at $aran)ay =ooc, Duma)uete !ity.5 he &$ coordinated /ith the 8hilippine &ational 8olice 8&8in Duma)uete !ity and discreet in>uiries and sur0eillance /ere made to 0erify the information.'

8olice ?fficer 8? 1 *arcelina $autista and 8?1 Raymunda *oreno of the 8&8 Duma)uete !ity /ere tas6ed

to do the sur0eillance.@ n the course of the sur0eillance, 8?1 $autista /as a3le to )ain the trust ofaccused-appellant to the point of pretendin) to a)ree to 3e his )irlfriend.4 his led to a positi0e test 3uy of85. /orth of shabufrom accused-appellant 3y 8?1 $autista and 8?1 *oreno on July 2, 2.1 iththis de0elopment, in the mornin) of July 21, 2, &$ A)ent !hester Ald/in !elon applied for a /arrant to

search accused-appellantBs residence for dan)erous dru)s. After the e

7/25/2019 People vs. Somoza

2/7

o facilitate the e

7/25/2019 People vs. Somoza

3/7

/ait for a/hile as Asunio /as still doin) somethin). Asunio /ent out and, moments after, shouted a /arnin)that accused-appellant /ould 3e arrested. Accused-appellant immediately /ent out of AsunioBs house and

ran a/ay 3ut se0eral persons suddenly appeared, 3loc6ed his path and arrested him. %e /as handcuffedand 3odily searched 3ut the police officers found nothin). %e /as then sho/n a copy of a search /arrant

and told that it /as for him. %e /as thereafter 3oarded in a police car and 3rou)ht to his house. A search/as made in his place 3ut nothin) ille)al /as found there. %e /as su3se>uently 3rou)ht to the &$ office/here he /as photo)raphed and documented.2'

n its Joint Jud)ment dated *ay +, 2', the trial court disre)arded the accused-appellantBs defense for itsinherent /ea6ness and )a0e full faith and credence to the testimony of the la/ enforcers. t found noimproper moti0e or ill /ill on the part of said la/ enforcers to testify a)ainst him. heir testimonies, credi3leand consistent, corro3orated 3y the statements of Kagawadala0era and media representati0e #lloren and

3ac6ed 3y o39ect and documentary e0idence sufficiently esta3lished the )uilt of accused-appellant. hedispositi0e portion of the Joint Jud)ment reads7 crala00onlinela/li3rary

&HEREFORE, in the li)ht of all the fore)oin), the !ourt here3y renders 9ud)ment as follo/s7 crala00onlinela/li3rary

1. n !riminal !ase &o. 1'', the accused Reynaldo Andy Somoza y %andaya is here3y found "F=G3eyond reasona3le dou3t of the offense of ille)al sale of . )ram of sha3u in 0iolation of Section , Article

, of RA &o. 415 and is here3y sentenced to suffer a penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of i0e%undred housand 8esos 8,..

he one 1 heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet /hich contained the . )ram of sha3u is here3yconfiscated and forfeited in fa0or of the )o0ernment and to 3e disposed of in accordance /ith la/.

2. n !riminal !ase &o. 1''1, the accused Reynaldo Andy Somoza y %andaya is here3y found "F=G3eyond reasona3le dou3t of the offense of ille)al possession of .54 )ram of sha3u in 0iolation of Section

11, Article of RA &o. 415 and is here3y sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of :imprisonmentfor; t/el0e 12 years and one 1 day as minimum term to fourteen 1( years as mauestiona3le and affected the chain of custody ofthe shabu. he irre)ularity 3ecame more )larin) considerin) the fact that no ille)al dru) /as found in his

house.24

n its Decision dated June 22, 21, the !ourt of Appeals found nothin) irre)ular in the 3uy-3ust operation.he non-presentation of the entire amount of 81,. mar6ed money did not diminish the inte)rity of the3uy-3ust process, especially considerin) the circumstance that accused-appellant thre/ the money /hiletryin) to e0ade arrest. *oreo0er, the successful prosecution of ille)al sale of dan)erous dru)s does not

hin)e on the presentation of all the mar6ed money used in the 3uy-3ust operation, pursuant to Cruz v.People+/hich ruled that neither la/ nor 9urisprudence re>uires the presentation of any money used in the3uy-3ust operation.

he !ourt of Appeals held that the 3uy-3ust /as not affected 3y the a3sence of a pre-operation report.Fnder the o3tainin) facts, no pre-operation report /as prepared as the 3uy-3ust operation /as ur)entlyconcei0ed. &ot/ithstandin) the s/iftness of the e

7/25/2019 People vs. Somoza

4/7

operation in detail durin) trial.+1

he !ourt of Appeals further ruled that the statements of 8?1 $autista and &$ A)ent !elon /ere notcontradictory. ?nly 8?1 $autista made the claim of personally reco0erin) the si< sachets of shabufrom

accused-appellant. &$ A)ent !elon, on the other hand, simply stated that the metallic tu3e and the si