ABRAHAM MICLAT, JR.

y CERBO,
Petitioner,
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
DECISION

PERALTA, J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse and set aside
the Decision[1] dated October 13, 2006 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-
G.R. CR No. 28846, which in turn affirmed in toto the Decision of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 120, Caloocan City, in Criminal Case
No. C-66765 convicting petitioner of Violation of Section 11, Article II of
Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
of 2002.
The factual and procedural antecedents are as follows:

In an Information[2] dated November 11, 2002, petitioner Abraham C.

Miclat, Jr. was charged for Violation of Section 11, Article II of RA No.
9165, the accusatory portion of which reads:

That on or about the 08th day of November 2002, in Caloocan City, Metro
Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, without the authority of law, did then and there willfully and
feloniously have in his possession, custody and control
[METHAMPHETAMINE] HYDROCHLORIDE (SHABU) weighing 0.24
gram, knowing the same to be a dangerous drug under the provisions of
the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. (Emphasis supplied.)[3]
Upon arraignment, petitioner, with the assistance of counsel pleaded not
guilty to the crime charged. Consequently, trial on the merits ensued.

To establish its case, the prosecution presented Police Inspector Jessie

Abadilla Dela Rosa (P/Insp Dela Rosa), Forensic Chemical Officer of the
Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory, NPD-CLO, Caloocan
City Police Station and Police Officer 3 Rodrigo Antonio (PO3 Antonio) of
the Caloocan Police Station Drug Enforcement Unit. The testimony of the
police investigator, PO3 Fernando Moran (PO3 Moran), was dispensed
with after petitioners counsel admitted the facts offered for stipulation by
the prosecution.

On the other hand, the defense presented the petitioner as its sole witness.
The testimonies of Abraham Miclat, Sr. and Ma. Concepcion Miclat, the
father and sister, respectively, of the petitioner was dispensed with after the
prosecution agreed that their testimonies were corroborative in nature.
Evidence for the Prosecution

First to testify for the prosecution was P/Insp. Jessie Abadilla Dela Rosa,
Forensic Chemical Officer of the PNP Crime Laboratory, NPD-CLO,
Caloocan City Police Station who, on the witness stand, affirmed his own
findings in Physical Science Report No. D-1222-02 (Exhs. D, D-1, and D-2)
that per qualitative examination conducted on the specimen submitted, the
white crystalline substance weighing 0.05 gram, 0.06 gram, 0.07 gram, and
0.06 gram then contained inside four (4) separate pieces of small heat-
sealed transparent plastic sachets (Exhs. D-4 to D-7) gave positive result to
the test for Methylamphetamine (sic) Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.

Also, thru the testimony of PO3 Rodrigo Antonio of the Caloocan Police
Station-Drug Enforcement Unit, Samson Road, Caloocan City, the
prosecution further endeavored to establish the following:
At about 1:00 oclock in the afternoon of November 8, 2002, P/Insp. Jose
Valencia of the Caloocan City Police Station-SDEU called upon his
subordinates after the (sic) receiving an INFOREP Memo from Camp
Crame relative to the illicit and down-right drug-trading activities being
undertaken along Palmera Spring II, Bagumbong, Caloocan City involving
Abe Miclat, Wily alias Bokbok and one Mic or Jojo (Exhs. E, E-1, and (sic)
E-3, and E-4). Immediately, P/Insp. Valencia formed a surveillance team
headed by SPO4 Ernesto Palting and is composed of five (5) more
operatives from the Drug Enforcement Unit, namely: PO3 Pagsolingan,
PO2 Modina, PO2 De Ocampo, and herein witness PO3 Antonio. After a
short briefing at their station, the team boarded a rented passenger jeepney
and proceeded to the target area to verify the said informant and/or
memorandum.

When the group of SPO4 Palting arrived at Palmera Spring II, Caloocan
City at around 3:50 oclock that same afternoon, they were [at] once led by
their informant to the house of one Alias Abe. PO3 Antonio then positioned
himself at the perimeter of the house, while the rest of the members of the
group deployed themselves nearby. Thru a small opening in the curtain-
covered window, PO3 Antonio peeped inside and there at a distance of 1
meters, he saw Abe arranging several pieces of small plastic sachets which
he believed to be containing shabu. Slowly, said operative inched his way
in by gently pushing the door as well as the plywood covering the same.
Upon gaining entrance, PO3 Antonio forthwith introduced himself as a
police officer while Abe, on the other hand, after being informed of such
authority, voluntarily handed over to the former the four (4) pieces of small
plastic sachets the latter was earlier sorting out. PO3 Antonio immediately
placed the suspect under arrest and brought him and the four (4) pieces of
plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance to their headquarters
and turned them over to PO3 Fernando Moran for proper disposition. The
suspect was identified as Abraham Miclat y Cerbo a.k.a ABE, 19 years old,
single, jobless and a resident of Maginhawa Village, Palmera Spring II,
Bagumbong, Caloocan City.[4]

Evidence for the Defense

On the other hand, the [petitioner] has a different version of the incident
completely opposed to the theory of the prosecution. On the witness stand,
he alleged that at about 4:00 oclock in the afternoon of November 8, 2002,
while he, together with his sister and father, were at the upper level of their
house watching the television soap Cindy, they suddenly heard a
commotion downstairs prompting the three (3) of them to go down. There
already inside were several male individuals in civilian clothes who
introduced themselves as raiding police operatives from the SDEU out to
effect his (Abe) arrest for alleged drug pushing. [Petitioner] and his father
tried to plead his case to these officers, but to no avail. Instead, one of the
operatives even kicked [petitioner] at the back when he tried to resist the
arrest. Immediately, [petitioner] was handcuffed and together with his
father, they were boarded inside the police vehicle. That on their way to the
Bagong Silang Police Station, PO3 Pagsolingan showed to [petitioner] a
small piece of plastic sachet containing white crystalline substances
allegedly recovered by the raiding police team from their house. At around
9:00 oclock in the evening, [petitioner] was transferred to the Sangandaan
Headquarters where he was finally detained. That upon [petitioners]
transfer and detention at the said headquarters, his father was ordered to
go home.[5]

On July 28, 2004, the RTC, after finding that the prosecution has
established all the elements of the offense charged, rendered a Decision[6]
convicting petitioner of Violation of Section 11, Article II of RA No. 9165, the
dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, from the facts established, the Court finds the accused
ABRAHAM MICLAT Y CERBO GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of possession of a dangerous drugs (sic) defined and penalized
under the provision of Section 11, sub-paragraph No. (3), Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165 and hereby imposes upon him an indeterminate
penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years of
imprisonment, in view of the absence of aggravating circumstances. The
Court likewise orders the accused to pay the amount of Three Hundred
Thousand Pesos (Php300,000.00) as fine.

Let the 0.24 gram of shabu subject matter of this case be confiscated and
forfeited in favor of the Government and to be turned over to the Philippine
Drug Enforcement Agency for proper disposition.

SO ORDERED. (Emphasis supplied.)[7]

Aggrieved, petitioner sought recourse before the CA, which appeal was
later docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 28846.

On October 13, 2006, the CA rendered a Decision[8] affirming in toto the

decision of the RTC, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED

and the assailed Decision AFFIRMED in toto. Costs against the accused-
appellant.

SO ORDERED. (Emphasis supplied.)[9]

In affirming the RTC, the CA ratiocinated that contrary to the contention of

the petitioner, the evidence presented by the prosecution were all
admissible against him. Moreover, it was established that he was informed
of his constitutional rights at the time of his arrest. Hence, the CA opined
that the prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt all of the
elements necessary for the conviction of the petitioner for the offense of
illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
Hence, the petition raising the following errors:

1. WHETHER OR NOT A POLICE SURVEILLANCE TEAM SENT TO

DETERMINE THE VERACITY OF A CAMP CRAME MEMORANDUM OF
SHABU TRADING ACTIVITY AT CALOOCAN CITY, WHICH
CONVERTED THEIR MISSION FROM SURVEILLANCE TO A RAIDING
TEAM, CAN VALIDLY MAKE AN ARREST AND SEARCH WITHOUT A
VALID WARRANT HAVING BEEN FIRST OBTAINED FROM A COURT
OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION.

2. WHETHER OR NOT PEEPING THROUGH A CURTAIN-COVERED

WINDOW IS WITHIN THE MEANING OF PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE FOR A
WARRANTLESS SEIZURE TO BE LAWFUL.

3. WHETHER OR NOT THE BELIEF OF PO3 ANTONIO THAT THE

FOUR (4) PIECES OF PLASTIC SACHETS ALLEGEDLY BEING
ARRANGED BY PETITIONER CONTAINED SHABU JUSTIFIED HIS
ENTRY INTO THE HOUSE AND ARREST PETITIONER WITHOUT ANY
WARRANT.

4. WHETHER OR NOT ARRANGING FOUR (4) PIECES OF PLASTIC

SACHETS CONSTITUTE AS A CRIME WITHIN THE MEANING OF
SECTION 5 (3), RULE 113 OF THE RULES OF COURT.

5. WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER WAS PROPERLY APPRAISED

(SIC) OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO BE INFORMED OF THE
CAUSE AND NATURE OF HIS ARREST AND RIGHT TO BE ASSISTED
BY COUNSEL DURING THE PERIOD OF HIS ARREST AND
CONTINUED DETENTION.
6. WHETHER OR NOT THE CONVICTION BY THE LOWER COURT
OF THE PETITIONER, AS AFFIRMED BY THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS, ON THE BASIS OF AN ILLEGAL SEARCH AND ARREST, IS
CORRECT.[10]

Simply stated, petitioner is assailing the legality of his arrest and the
subsequent seizure of the arresting officer of the suspected sachets of
dangerous drugs from him. Petitioner insists that he was just watching
television with his father and sister when police operatives suddenly barged
into their home and arrested him for illegal possession of shabu.

Petitioner also posits that being seen in the act of arranging several plastic
sachets inside their house by one of the arresting officers who was peeping
through a window is not sufficient reason for the police authorities to enter
his house without a valid search warrant and/or warrant of arrest. Arguing
that the act of arranging several plastic sachets by and in itself is not a
crime per se, petitioner maintains that the entry of the police surveillance
team into his house was illegal, and no amount of incriminating evidence
will take the place of a validly issued search warrant. Moreover, peeping
through a curtain-covered window cannot be contemplated as within the
meaning of the plain view doctrine, rendering the warrantless arrest
unlawful.

Petitioner also contends that the chain of custody of the alleged illegal
drugs was highly questionable, considering that the plastic sachets were
not marked at the place of the arrest and no acknowledgment receipt was
issued for the said evidence.

Finally, petitioner claims that the arresting officer did not inform him of his
constitutional rights at any time during or after his arrest and even during
his detention. Hence, for this infraction, the arresting officer should be
punished accordingly.
The petition is bereft of merit.

At the outset, it is apparent that petitioner raised no objection to the

irregularity of his arrest before his arraignment. Considering this and his
active participation in the trial of the case, jurisprudence dictates that
petitioner is deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial court,
thereby curing any defect in his arrest.[11] An accused is estopped from
assailing any irregularity of his arrest if he fails to raise this issue or to
move for the quashal of the information against him on this ground before
arraignment. Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure
by which the court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused
must be made before he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is
deemed waived.[12]

In the present case, at the time of petitioners arraignment, there was no

objection raised as to the irregularity of his arrest. Thereafter, he actively
participated in the proceedings before the trial court. In effect, he is
deemed to have waived any perceived defect in his arrest and effectively
submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court trying his case. At any
rate, the illegal arrest of an accused is not sufficient cause for setting aside
a valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient complaint after a trial free from
error. It will not even negate the validity of the conviction of the
accused.[13]

True, the Bill of Rights under the present Constitution provides in part:

SEC. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,

papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of
whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search
warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be
determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things
to be seized.

However, a settled exception to the right guaranteed by the above-stated

provision is that of an arrest made during the commission of a crime, which
does not require a previously issued warrant. Such warrantless arrest is
considered reasonable and valid under Section 5 (a), Rule 113 of the
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, to wit:

Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. a peace office of a private

person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is

actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;[14]

For the exception in Section 5 (a), Rule 113 to operate, this Court has ruled
that two (2) elements must be present: (1) the person to be arrested must
execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is
done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.[15]

In the instant case, contrary to petitioners contention, he was caught in

flagrante delicto and the police authorities effectively made a valid
warrantless arrest. The established facts reveal that on the date of the
arrest, agents of the Station Drug Enforcement Unit (SDEU) of the
Caloocan City Police Station were conducting a surveillance operation in
the area of Palmera Spring II to verify the reported drug-related activities of
several individuals, which included the petitioner. During the operation,
PO3 Antonio, through petitioners window, saw petitioner arranging several
plastic sachets containing what appears to be shabu in the living room of
their home. The plastic sachets and its suspicious contents were plainly
exposed to the view of PO3 Antonio, who was only about one and one-half
meters from where petitioner was seated. PO3 Antonio then inched his way
in the house by gently pushing the door. Upon gaining entrance, the
operative introduced himself as a police officer. After which, petitioner
voluntarily handed over to PO3 Antonio the small plastic sachets. PO3
Antonio then placed petitioner under arrest and, contrary to petitioners
contention, PO3 Antonio informed him of his constitutional rights.[16] PO3
Antonio then took the petitioner and the four (4) pieces of plastic sachets to
their headquarters and turned them over to PO3 Moran. Thereafter, the
evidence were marked AMC 1-4, the initials of the name of the petitioner.
The heat-sealed transparent sachets containing white crystalline substance
were submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory for drug examination, which
later yielded positive results for the presence of methamphetamine
hydrochloride, a dangerous drug under RA No. 9165.

Considering the circumstances immediately prior to and surrounding the

arrest of the petitioner, petitioner was clearly arrested in flagrante delicto as
he was then committing a crime, violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act,
within the view of the arresting officer.

As to the admissibility of the seized drugs in evidence, it too falls within the
established exceptions.

Verily, no less than the 1987 Constitution mandates that a search and
consequent seizure must be carried out with a judicial warrant; otherwise, it
becomes unreasonable, and any evidence obtained therefrom shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.[17] The right against
warrantless searches and seizure, however, is subject to legal and judicial
exceptions, namely:

1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest;

2. Search of evidence in "plain view";
3. Search of a moving vehicle;
4. Consented warrantless search;
5. Customs search;
6. Stop and Frisk; and
7. Exigent and emergency circumstances.[18]

What constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable warrantless search or

seizure is purely a judicial question, determinable from the uniqueness of
the circumstances involved, including the purpose of the search or seizure,
the presence or absence of probable cause, the manner in which the
search and seizure was made, the place or thing searched, and the
character of the articles procured.[19]

It is to be noted that petitioner was caught in the act of arranging the heat-
sealed plastic sachets in plain sight of PO3 Antonio and he voluntarily
surrendered them to him upon learning that he is a police officer. The
seizure made by PO3 Antonio of the four plastic sachets from the petitioner
was not only incidental to a lawful arrest, but it also falls within the purview
of the plain view doctrine.

Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in a position

to have that view are subject to seizure even without a search warrant and
may be introduced in evidence. The plain view doctrine applies when the
following requisites concur: (a) the law enforcement officer in search of the
evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from
which he can view a particular area; (b) the discovery of evidence in plain
view is inadvertent; (c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item
he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject
to seizure. The law enforcement officer must lawfully make an initial
intrusion or properly be in a position from which he can particularly view the
area. In the course of such lawful intrusion, he came inadvertently across a
piece of evidence incriminating the accused. The object must be open to
eye and hand and its discovery inadvertent. (Emphasis supplied.)[20]

It is clear, therefore, that an object is in plain view if the object itself is

plainly exposed to sight. Since petitioners arrest is among the exceptions
to the rule requiring a warrant before effecting an arrest and the evidence
seized from the petitioner was the result of a warrantless search incidental
to a lawful arrest, which incidentally was in plain view of the arresting
officer, the results of the ensuing search and seizure were admissible in
evidence to prove petitioners guilt of the offense charged.

As to petitioners contention that the police failed to comply with the proper
procedure in the transfer of custody of the seized evidence thereby casting
serious doubt on its seizure, this too deserves scant consideration.

Section 21, paragraphs 1 and 2, Article II of RA No. 9165 provides:

Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or

Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs,
Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia
and/or Laboratory Equipment. - The PDEA shall take charge and have
custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs,
controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated,
seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs
shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and
photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from
whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative
or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice
(DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the
copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof;

(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous

drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and
essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory
equipment, the same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory
for a qualitative and quantitative examination;

x x x x.

Corolarilly, the implementing provision of Section 21 (a), Article II of the

Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA No. 9165, provides:

(a) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs
shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and
photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from
whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative
or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice
(DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the
copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, further, that
non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long
as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and
invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.

x x x x.[21]
From the foregoing, it is clear that the failure of the law enforcers to comply
strictly with the rule is not fatal. It does not render petitioners arrest illegal
nor the evidence adduced against him inadmissible.[22] What is essential
is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or
innocence of the accused.[23]

Here, the requirements of the law were substantially complied with and the
integrity of the drugs seized from the petitioner was preserved. More
importantly, an unbroken chain of custody of the prohibited drugs taken
from the petitioner was sufficiently established. The factual antecedents of
the case reveal that the petitioner voluntarily surrendered the plastic
sachets to PO3 Antonio when he was arrested. Together with petitioner,
the evidence seized from him were immediately brought to the police
station and upon arriving thereat, were turned over to PO3 Moran, the
investigating officer. There the evidence was marked. The turn-over of the
subject sachets and the person of the petitioner were then entered in the
official blotter. Thereafter, the Chief of the SDEU, Police Senior Inspector
Jose Ramirez Valencia, endorsed the evidence for laboratory examination
to the National Police District PNP Crime Laboratory. The evidence was
delivered by PO3 Moran and received by Police Inspector Jessie Dela
Rosa.[24] After a qualitative examination of the contents of the four (4)
plastic sachets by the latter, the same tested positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.[25]

An unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs had, therefore, been

established by the prosecution from the arresting officer, to the
investigating officer, and finally to the forensic chemist. There is no doubt
that the items seized from the petitioner at his residence were also the
same items marked by the investigating officer, sent to the Crime
Laboratory, and later on tested positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride.
For conviction of illegal possession of a prohibited drug to lie, the following
elements must be established: (1) the accused was in possession of an
item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such
possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused was freely and
consciously aware of being in possession of the drug.[26] Based on the
evidence submitted by the prosecution, the above elements were duly
established in the present case. 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 the onus probandi is shifted to the accused, to explain the
absence of knowledge or animus possidendi.[27]

It is a settled rule that in cases involving violations of the Comprehensive

Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are
police officers for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a
regular manner.[28] Although not constrained to blindly accept the findings
of fact of trial courts, appellate courts can rest assured that such facts were
gathered from witnesses who presented their statements live and in person
in open court. In cases where conflicting sets of facts are presented, the
trial courts are in the best position to recognize and distinguish
spontaneous declaration from rehearsed spiel, straightforward assertion
from a stuttering claim, definite statement from tentative disclosure, and to
a certain degree, truth from untruth.[29]

In the present case, there is no compelling reason to reverse the findings of

fact of the trial court. No evidence exist that shows any apparent
inconsistencies in the narration of the prosecution witnesses of the events
which transpired and led to the arrest of petitioner. After a careful
evaluation of the records, We find no error was committed by the RTC and
the CA to disregard their factual findings that petitioner committed the crime
charged against him.

Against the overwhelming evidence of the prosecution, petitioner merely

denied the accusations against him and raised the defense of frame-up.
The defense of denial and frame-up has been invariably viewed by this
Court 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.[30]

As to the penalty, while We sustain the amount of fine, the indeterminate

sentence imposed should, however, be modified.
Section 11, Article II, RA No. 9165, otherwise known as the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, provides:

Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. The penalty of life

imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand
pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be
imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess
any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of
purity thereof:

x x x x.

Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the
penalties shall be graduated as follows:

x x x x.

(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years
and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to
Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous
drugs are less than five (5) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or
cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil,
methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu", or other dangerous drugs
such as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy," PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and
those similarly designed or newly-introduced drugs and their derivatives,
without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far
beyond therapeutic requirements; or less than three hundred (300) grams
of marijuana.[31]

From the foregoing, illegal possession of less than five (5) grams of
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu is penalized with imprisonment
of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging
from Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) to Four Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P400,000.00). The evidence adduced by the prosecution
established beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner had in his possession
0.24 gram of shabu, or less than five (5) grams of the dangerous drug,
without any legal authority.

Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum period of the

imposable penalty shall not fall below the minimum period set by the law;
the maximum period shall not exceed the maximum period allowed under
the law; hence, the imposable penalty should be within the range of twelve
(12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision
dated October 13, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 28846
is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioner is sentenced to suffer the
indeterminate sentence of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen
(14) years and eight (8) months.

SO ORDERED.