7/30/2019 Velasco vs Comelec2

1/1

G.R. No. 110592; January23, 1996

PEOPLE VS. VELASCO

FACTS:

Sentencedto life imprisonment anda fine ofP20,000.00 bythe RegionalTrialCourt of Manila wasappellant Yolanda Velasco y Pamintuan, after havingbeenfound guilty of unlawfully sellingshabu, inviolationof Section15 of Article III inrelationto Section2(e -2),(f), (m), and(o) of Article 1 of The Dangerous Drugs Act of1972 (R.A. 6425).

Velasco was apprehendedina buy-bust operationin the afternoonof June 28, 1991. Velasco was caught in flagrante delictoas she washandingshabuto a designatedposeur-buyer. Five more decks were foundin her pockets.

Appellant argues that the court erred inadmittingthe saiddecks of shabuas evidence against her since thosewere acquiredthrougha warrantlessarrest.Hence, its inadmissibility. Secondly, appellant questions the RTCs jurisdictionover thecasegiven the quantityallegedly obtainedinher possession.

ISSUES:

1.) Whetheror notthe decksof shabuare inadmissible as evidencefor havingbeenacquiredthrougha warrantless arrest.

2.) Whether or notthe RTC has jurisdictionover the case.

RULING:

1.) Yes. Section5(a) of Rule 113 of the Rules onCriminal Procedure provides that anarrest whendone lawfully either by a peace officeror any private person may be done ifthe person to be arrestedis actually committing, has committedor attempting to commit an offense.

Appellant was caught in flagrante delictothus her denialand defense of frame-upcannot be justifiedunder the saidprovision. Moreover,appellant failedto establishthat the members of the buy-bust teamare policemenengagedinmulctingor other unscrupulous caprice whenthey entrappedher.

2.) Yes. The enforcement of R.A. 7659, whichamended the penalty providedfor inR.A. 6425, agrees withthe appellants argument that under the foregoing directive, since the amountof shabu involved in the instantcase is only 0.8020 gram, the proper imposablecomponen tpenalty is prision correccional to beapplied in its mediumperiod, in the absence of any mitigatingor aggravating circumstances. Applying the

indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximumshall be taken fromthe 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 minimumshall be taken fromthe 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 expandedthe jurisdictionof the MetropolitanTrialCourts, MunicipalTrialCourts, andMunicipalCircuit TrialCourts. The saidact vestedthese courts withexclusive originaljurisdictionover alloffenses punishable withimprisonment not exceedingsix years. However, R.A. 7691 shows thatretroactiveprovisions apply only to civilcases that have notyet reachedthe pre-trialstage. Neither froman express proviso

nor by implicationcanit be understoodashavingretroactive applicationto criminalcases pendingor decidedby the RegionalTrialCourts prior to its effectivity. RTCs jurisdictionto proceedtothe final determinationofthe cause is not affectedby the new legislation.

At the time that the caseagainstappellant was filed, the RegionalTrialCourt had jurisdictionoverthe offense chargedin as muchas Section 39 of R.A6425. Infine, the jurisdictionofthe trialcourt (RTC) overthe case of the appellant was conferredby the aforecitedlaw then inforce (R.A. 6425 before amendment) whenthe informationwasfiled. Jurisdictionattacheduponthe commencement of the actionandcouldnot

be oustedby the passage of R.A. 7691 reapportioningt he jurisdictionof inferior courts, the applicationof which to criminalcases is, to stress, prospective innature.

http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence1996/jan1996/110592.php#_edn1http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence1996/jan1996/110592.php#_edn1http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence1996/jan1996/110592.php#_edn1