People vs. Musa

6. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.
ASIA MUSA y PINASALO, ARA MONONGAN y

PAPAO, FAISAH ABAS y MAMA, and MIKE SOLALO y MILOK,Accused-Appellants.
Article 62. Effects of attendance of mitigating or aggravating circumstance; abuse of public position; organized
syndicate crime group; and habitual delinquency.
The Station Anti-Illegal Drugs-Special Operating Task Force of the Taguig City Police organizes a buy-bust operation.
The police agreed that PO1 Memoracion was the designated poseur-buyer; that five one-thousand peso (PhP 1000) bills
with Memoracion’s initials were to be used as marked money. The buy-bust team, along with the informant, proceeded
to a nearby shopping mall (Sunshine Mall) where the police had arranged PO1 Memoracion and the informant to meet
with the alleged drug dealers.
The informant then introduced Memoracion, as a potential buyer, to Abas and Solano. PO1 Memoracion then told Abas
and Solano that he wanted to score shabu worth five-thousand pesos (PhP 5,000) but the two replied that they do not
have available stocks on hand. Abas and Solano offered to accompany PO1 Memoracion to Musa who was at a nearby
condominium unit. Memoracion agreed and pretended to go to the comfort room in order to inform PO1 Arago
regarding the change of venue.
Thereafter, the informant, Memoracion, Abas and Solano boarded a tricycle to Musa’s place. They arrived at the
condominium and went to the 4th floor of the building while the rest of the buy-bust team remained at the ground
floor while waiting for Memoracions’s call. The four met Musa. Abas introduced Memoracion to Musa as the buyer.
Musa then ordered Ara Monongan (Monongan) to count the money. Afterwards, Musa took from her pocket one (1)
heat sealed plastic sachet of shabu and gave it to PO1 Memoracion. The latter immediately made the call to PO1 Arago
who, together with two (2) other police officers,4 proceeded right away to PO1 Memoracion’s location.5
The RTC found all the accused guilty of the crime of Violation of RA 9165 in relation to Article 62, 2nd paragraph of
the Revised Penal Code and are sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and fine of P10,000,000.
With reference to accused-appellant Monongan, the RTC found her to be a minor or 17 years old at the time of the
commission of the offense. Accordingly, it imposed the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of fourteen (14) years,
eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to sixteen (16) years of reclusion temporal, as
maximum , and to pay a fine of PhP 500,000.00. On appeal, the CA increased the penalty of Monongan to life
imprisonment and fine of P10,000,000.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN IMPOSING THE MAXIMUM PENALTY OF LIFE
IMPRISONMENT AND A FINE OF TEN MILLION PESOS AGAINST ALL OF THE ACCUSED.
The Court held that pursuant to RA 9165, the penalty for acts punishable by life imprisonment to death provided in
the same law shall be reclusion perpetua to death when the offender is a minor; and that the penalty should be
graduated since the said provision adopted the technical nomenclature of penalties provided for in the Revised Penal
Code
Thus, the proper penalty should be one degree lower than reclusion perpetua, which is reclusion temporal, the
privileged mitigating circumstance of minority having been appreciated. Necessarily, also applying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law (ISLAW), the minimum penalty should be taken from the penalty next lower in degree which is prision
mayor and the maximum penalty shall be taken from the medium period of reclusion temporal, there being no other
mitigating circumstance nor aggravating circumstance. Therefore, a penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision
mayor, as minimum, and fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum,
would be the proper imposable penalty.
As regards the fine imposed, the RTC sentenced accused-appellants the maximum fine of PhP 10 million on the ground
that accused-appellants sold shabu as members of an organized crime group or a drug syndicate. It ruled that Article
62 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Sec. 23 of RA 7659, mandates that the maximum penalty shall be imposed
if the offense was committed by any person who belongs to an organized/syndicated crime group. These findings were
eventually affirmed by CA.
Article 62 of the Revised Penal Code defines an organized/syndicated crime group as a group of two or more persons
collaborating, confederating, or mutually helping one another for the purposes of gain in the commission of any crime.
There was no proof that appellants were a group organized for the general purpose of committing crimes for gain,
which is the essence of the aggravating circumstance of organized/syndicated group under Article 62 of the Revised
Penal Code.
Consequently, the aggravating circumstance that "the offense was committed by an organized/syndicated group"
cannot be appreciated. Thus, the maximum PhP 10 million imposed by the trial and appellate courts upon each of
accused-appellants should be modified accordingly. Each of the accused-appellants shall pay a fine in the amount of
five hundred thousand pesos (PhP 500,000).

People vs. Musa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People vs. Musa

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People vs. Musa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

6. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.

ASIA MUSA y PINASALO, ARA MONONGAN y

You might also like