Today is Tuesday, July 11, 2017

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

Section 4, Article II of Republic Act

ging that on or about October 22, 1988, at Barangay Sto. Cristo, Guagua, Pampanga, he sold four tea bags of marijuana to a Narcotic

ape from Camp Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga where he was temporarily detained, 2 he pleaded not guilty. He voluntarily waived his

ormed the police unit at Camp Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga, of the illegal drug activities of a certain "Alyas Pusa" at Sto. Cristo,
uz and
team, together with their informant, proceeded to Sto. Cristo after they had coordinated with the police authorities and barangay offic
ative and Lopez offered to buy two tea bags. Appellant then left and, upon returning shortly thereafter, handed to Lopez two marijuan

am closed in on them. Thereupon, Villaruz, who was the head of the back-up team, arrested appellant. The latter was then brought b

and the appellant. He also averred that he was the one who confiscated the marijuana and took the marked money from appellant. 5
ned farthest from the rest of the other members, that is, around two hundred meters away from his companions. He did not actually s
herein the latter was apprised of his rights to remain silent, to information and to counsel. Appellant, however, orally waived his right

pellant signed, admitting therein the confiscation of four tea bags of marijuana dried leaves in his possession. Pejoro likewise informe
t "two", instead of "one" and "40", instead of "20". He agreed to the correction since they were the ones who were personally and dire

he latter's apprehension, and the results were practically normal except for his relatively high blood pressure. The doctor also did not

y of peptic ulcer, which causes him to experience abdominal pain and consequently vomit blood. In the afternoon, appellant came bac

uestion, at around 4:30 p.m., he was watching television with the members of his family in their house when three persons, whom he
going to Camp Olivas, but he later noticed that they were taking a different route. While on board, he was told that he was a pusher s
nine times by Sgt. Pejoro. He was then compelled to affix his signature and fingerprints on the documents presented to him. He den
ered at the hands of Pejoro. He admitted having escaped from the NARCOM office but claimed that he did so since he could no long
0 p.m. There, he consulted a quack doctor and, later, he was accompanied by his sister to the Romana Pangan District Hospital at Flo

Pampanga after undergoing abdominal pain and vomiting of blood. He likewise confirmed that appellant had been suffering from pep
amination revealed that the cause for this ailment was appellant's peptic ulcer. She did not see any sign of slight or serious external injury, a

ng appellant for a violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of l

his assignment of errors that the latter erred in (1) not upholding his defense of "frame-up", (2) not declaring Exhibit "G" (Receipt of P

llant actually sold only two tea bags of marijuana dried leaves, while the other two tea bags were merely confiscated subsequently fro
n in this appeal is merely the act of selling the two tea bags allegedly committed by appellant, and does not include the disparate and distinc

d. 17 To sell means to give, whether for money or any other material consideration. 18 It must, therefore, be established beyond doubt that ap

n that appellant was caught in flagrante delicto engaging in the illegal sale of prohibited drugs. The prosecution was able to prove bey
ny was amply corroborated by his teammates. As between the straightforward, positive and corroborated testimony of Lopez and the

usceptible to mistake, harassment, extortion and abuse. 19 Nonetheless, such causes for judicial apprehension and doubt do not obtain in

ey are presumed to have regularly performed their official duty. 21 Such lack of dubious motive coupled with the presumption of regularity in t
pon the mere shifting sands of an alibi. To top it all, appellant was caught
ge, he does not appear to have plausibly done so.

y-Integrated National Police (PC-INP) at Camp Olivas for examination, P/Cpl. Marlyn Salangad, a forensic chemist therein, 23 confirme
been fully proved with certainty and conclusiveness. 25

s of the prosecution witnesses. Foremost, according to him, is the matter of who really confiscated the marijuana tea bags from him s
same. 26

since such is not an element of the offense with which appellant is charged. What is unmistakably clear is that the marijuana was co
minor matter and, as such, neither impairs the essential integrity of the prosecution evidence as a whole nor reflects on the witnesses
seizure or confiscation thereof as the investigator of their unit.
 powdered for finger-printing purposes contrary to the normal procedure in buy-bust operations. 28 This omission has been satisfactorily

ucting such operation you do not anymore provide a powder (sic) on the object so as to determine the thumbmark or identity of the pe

use we are lacking that kind of material in our office since that item can be purchased only in Manila and only few are producing that,

xxx xxx xxx

ory, CIS, as well as the office of NICA?

a request for that powder because they, themselves, are using that in their own work, sir. 29

urposes can under no mode of rationalization be fatal to the case of the prosecution because the Dangerous Drugs Act punishes "an
The dusting of said bills with phosphorescent powder is only an evidentiary technique for identification purposes, which identification can b

itness the seizure. He decries the lack of pictures taken before, during and after his arrest. Moreover, he was not reported to or book
ny other civilian, or be accompanied by the taking of pictures. On the contrary, the police enforcers having caught appellant in flagrante deli

on with his apprehension. Said Booking Sheet and Arrest Report 32 states, inter alia, that "suspect was arrested for selling two tea bags o
seized property, hereinbefore mentioned, was signed by appellant wherein he acknowledged the confiscation of the marked bills from him. 3

conformance to these documents are declarations against interest and tacit admissions of the crime charged. They were obtained in v
ing the custodial investigation that he waived his right to counsel, the waiver was not made in writing and in the presence of counsel, 35 henc
d to implicate a suspect.

his predicament since his criminal participation in the illegal sale of marijuana has been sufficiently proven. The commission of the o
he preceding discussion, this sale has been ascertained beyond any peradventure of doubt.

e this opportunity to once again reiterate the doctrinal rule that drug-pushing, when done on a small scale as in this case, belongs to that cla
seller but their agreement and the acts constituting the sale and delivery of the marijuana leaves. 42 While there may be instances where su
e exceptional particulars are not present in this case.

which caused him to escape from Camp Olivas the night he was placed under custody. 43 This he asserts to support his explanation as

only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but must be credible in itself such as the common experience and observation of m
defense, 46 testified on the absence of any tell-tale sign or indication of bodily injury, abrasions or contusions on the person of appellant. Wh
of bleeding peptic ulcer. 48

not divulging the same to his brother who went to see him at the camp after his arrest and during his detention there. 49 Significantly, h
uch omissions funnel down to the conclusion that appellant's story is a pure fabrication.

premeditated for the NARCOM agents were determined to arrest him at all costs. 51 Premeditated or not, appellant's arrest was only the
on a note of affirmance of the judgment of the trial court. However, Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, was further amended by Republic

II

is effect:

ed, known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, are hereby amended to read as follows:
 xxx xxx xxx

tion of Prohibited Drugs. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten m
sport any prohibited drug, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.

xxx xxx xxx

he Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, is hereby amended to read as follows:

e Proceeds or Instrument of the Crime. The penalties for offenses under Sections 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of Article II and Sections 14, 14

xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx

ities, the penalty shall range from prision correccional to reclusion perpetua depending upon the quantity.

total weight of only 3.8 grams and, in fact, stands to be convicted for the sale of only two of those tea bags, the initial inquiry would be
uant to Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code.

ution of the previous Articles 190 to 194 of the Revised Penal Code, 53 it has long been settled that by force of Article 10 of said Code th
since habitual delinquency refers to convictions for the third time or more of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robo, hurto

d nor invoked in the present case, a corollary question would be whether this court, at the present stage, can
issue has likewise been resolved in the cited case of People vs. Moran, et al., ante., thus:

roactivity of penal laws in so far as they are favorable to persons accused of a felony, would be useless and nugatory if the courts of
me and the penalty.

No. 7659 has already become final and executory or the accused is serving sentence thereunder, then practice, procedure and pragm

mitted in the drafting of the aforesaid law; thereby calling for and necessitating judicial reconciliation and craftsmanship.

e penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00 upon any person who shall unlawfu
grams or more of indian hemp or marijuana; otherwise, if the quantity involved is less, the penalty shall range from prision correcciona

y reason of its dual imposition, that is, as the maximum of the penalty where the marijuana is less than 750 grams, and also as the m
onize such conflicting provisions in order to give effect to the whole law, 57 we hereby hold that the penalty to be imposed where the quan
ule in criminal law that all doubts should be construed in a manner favorable to the accused.

posable range of penalties under the second paragraph of Section 20, as now modified, the law provides that the penalty shall be tak
cional, prision mayor, and reclusion temporal. In such a situation, the Code provides that each one shall form a period, with the lightes

ne which period of such complex penalty

specific mandate, above quoted, that the penalty shall instead depend upon the quantity of the drug subject of the criminal transactio
le penalty depending on the quantity of the drug involved. Thereby, the modifying circumstances will not altogether be disregarded. Since e
mponent penalty, as shall hereafter be explained.

hereon that, unless there are compelling reasons for a deviation, the quantities of the drugs enumerated in its second paragraph be d
reof. Thus, if the marijuana involved is below 250 grams, the penalty to be imposed shall be prision correccional; from 250 to 499 gra
ty is reclusion perpetua to death. 60

correccional is consequently indicated but, again, another preliminary and cognate issue has first to be resolved.

sists of three periods as provided in the text of and illustrated in the table provided by Article 76 of the Code. The question is whether
nal liability should be taken into account.

nder special laws, the rules on mitigating or aggravating circumstances under the Revised Penal Code cannot and should not be appl
nder, and which penalties were not taken from or with reference to those in the Revised Penal Code. Since the penalties then provide
to determine the period of the penalty in accordance with the rules in Article 64 of the Code.

on of penalties by degrees could not be given supplementary application to special laws, since the penalties in the latter were not com
ot be invoked where there is a legal or physical impossibility of, or a prohibition in the special law against, such supplementary applic

er a special law, the penalty therefor is actually taken from the Revised Penal Code in its technical nomenclature and, necessarily, w
ld consequently be both illogical and absurd to posit otherwise. More on this later.

mended by Republic Act No. 7659, is prision correccional, to be taken from the medium period thereof pursuant to Article 64 of the Re

ffenses under special laws would be necessary.

om the penalties provided in our Revised Penal Code and its Spanish origins, provided for one specific penalty or a range of penalties
at the time laws like the Indeterminate Sentence Law 61 were passed during the American regime.

r shall be punished under the Revised Penal Code and in the same manner provided therein. Inceptively, for instance, Commonwealt

tion one of this Act, shall prima facie be considered a fraud committed by such employer against his employee or laborer by means o
manner as therein provided. 63

he penalties as technically named and understood in the Revised Penal Code. These are exemplified by Republic Act No. 1700 (Ant
rision mayor; and Presidential Decree
prision mayor, reclusion temporal, reclusion perpetua or death.

s and not more than 17 years and 4 months, when committed without violence or intimidation of persons or force upon things; not les
r occupant of the carnapped vehicle is killed.

hout reference or relation to those under the Revised Penal Code, there can be no suppletory effect of the rules for the application of

e that the penalty of 14 years and

on temporal, such technical term under the Revised Penal Code is not given to that penalty for carnapping. Besides, the other penalti
6539 and special laws of the same formulation.

Revised Penal Code, as well as other statutory enactments founded upon and applicable to such provisions of the Code, have supple
cial laws, the fact that the penalties for offenses thereunder are those provided for in the Revised Penal code lucidly reveals the statu
ws. To hold otherwise would be to sanction an indefensible judicial truncation of an integrated system of penalties under the Code and

n as the Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974), it was contended by the prosecution that Article 64, paragraph 5, of the Revised Penal Code sho

distinct from and unrelated to the Revised Penal Code. From the nature of the penalty imposed which is in terms of the classification
eemed as an amendment of the Revised Penal Code, with respect to the offense of theft of large cattle (Art. 310) or otherwise to be s

to Republic Act No. 6425, in this case involving Article 63(2) of the Code, we have this more recent pronouncement:

Code shall be "supplementary" to special laws, this Court held that where the special law expressly grants to the court discretion in a

xplicit grant of discretion to the Court in the application of the penalty prescribed by the law. In such case, the court must be guided by
aws." (Emphasis ours.) 66

ublic Act No. 7659 by the incorporation and prescription therein of the technical penalties defined in and constituting integral parts of t
wise, the different kinds or classifications of penalties and the rules for graduating
ould result in absurdities as will now be explained.

of modifying circumstances, we have perforce to lay down the caveat that mitigating circumstances should be considered and applied

penalty, in accordance with the rules in Article 61 of the Code as applied to the scale of penalties in Article 71, are the stage of execu
ce, the penalty shall be reduced by one degree. Also, the presence of privileged mitigating circumstances, as provided in Articles 67 a
d paragraph of section 20 of Republic Act No. 6425, to avoid anomalous results which could not have been contemplated by the legi

cially provided for in the four preceding paragraphs thereof, the courts shall proceed by analogy therewith. Hence, when the penalty p
ticle 71. If this rule were to be applied, and since the complex penalty in this

or, destierro and arresto mayor. There could, however, be no further reduction by still one or two degrees, which must each likewise c

ods of the corresponding penalties, or even reduce the penalty by degrees, in no case should such graduation of penalties reduce the
principal penalty, and that the lowest penalty should in any event be prision correccional in order not to depreciate the seriousness o
e forged from an imperfect law, which impasse should now be the concern of and is accordingly addressed to Congress.

us. Apparently it does, since drug offenses are not included in nor has appellant committed any act which would put him within the e
more important aspect, however, is how the indeterminate sentence shall be ascertained.

evised Penal Code, states that "if the offense is punished by any other law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate
section indubitably refers to an offense under a special law wherein the penalty imposed was not taken from and is without reference

special laws was necessary because of the nature of the former type of penalties under said laws which were not included or contem
therein. In the illustrative examples of penalties in special laws hereinbefore provided, this rule applied, and would still apply, only to t

d the penalties under the Revised Penal Code in their technical terms, hence with their technical signification and effects. In fact, for
rticle 64 of the Code to impose the same in the medium period. Such offense, although provided for in a special law, is now in effect
nse punished by the Revised Penal Code, or its amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the
ext lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense." (Emphasis ours.)
maxim that qui haeret in litera haeret in cortice. Fortunately, this Court has never gone only skin-deep in its construction of Act. No. 41
ment," we have held that what is considered is the penalty actually imposed and not the penalty imposable under the law, 70 and that re

principles of literal interpretation, which have been rationalized by comparative decisions of this Court; of historical interpretation, as e
3 in an integrated scheme of penalties, it follows that the minimum of the indeterminate sentence in this case shall be the penalty nex
pretation. 71

terpreted in favor of the accused. 72 The "minimum" sentence is merely a period at which, and not before, as a matter of grace and not of r
tence under set conditions. That minimum is only the period when the convict's eligibility for parole may be considered. In fact, his release o

a minimum sentence within the range of arresto mayor, the penalty next lower to prision correccional which is the maximum range w
1 day of prision correccional. The difference, which could thereby even involve only one day, is hardly worth the creation of an overra

uo against accused-appellant Martin Simon y Sunga is AFFIRMED, but with the MODIFICATION that he should be, as he hereby is, s

JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions

uld be prision correccional pursuant to the second paragraph of Section 20 of R.A. No. 6425, as amended by Section 17 of R.A. No. 7
or; and (b) the presence of two or more mitigating circumstances not offset by any mitigating circumstances or of a privileged mitigatin

es under the Revised Penal Code in their technical terms, hence also their technical signification and effects, then what should govern

e, or its amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be that wh
to that prescribed by the Code for the offense.

penalized under the Dangerous Drugs Act (R.A. No. 6425), as amended, the latter offenses would now be considered as punished u

. 4203) also provides that:

 o an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall no

the Indeterminate Sentence Law: (1) offenses punished by the Revised Penal Code, and (2) offenses punished by other laws (or spe

hich is thus appropriately titled CRIMES AND PENALTIES. To simplify further, a crime is deemed punished under the Revised Penal

ned and penalized by the Revised Penal Code but by such other law.

y therefor are found in the said Code, and it is deemed punished by a special law if its definition and the penalty therefor are found in
al Code. The reason is quite simple. It is still the special law that defines the offense and imposes a penalty therefor, although it adop
ble" by the Revised Penal Code.

e Revised Penal Code in drug cases, offenses related to drugs should now be considered as punished under the Revised Penal Cod
participation (Article 16), accessory penalties (Articles 40-45), application of penalties to principals, accomplices, and accessories (A

enal Code does not make an offense under the Dangerous Drugs Act an offense punished by the Revised Penal Code. Consequent
n the accused should be that whose minimum should not be less than the minimum prescribed by the special law (the Dangerous Dru

II

ugs Act is a complex one composed of three distinct penalties, viz., prision correccional, prision mayor, and reclusion temporal, and t
g that under the said second paragraph of Section 20 the penalty depends on the quantity of the drug subject of the criminal transact
enalty depending on the quantity of the drug involved. Thereafter, applying the modifying circumstances pursuant to Article 64 of the

penalty should be prision correccional, but there is one mitigating and no aggravating circumstance, then the penalty to be imposed sh

d to determine the periods of the corresponding penalties, or even reduce the penalty by degrees, in no case should such graduation
second paragraph of Section 20 shall each be considered as an independent principal penalty, and that the lowest penalty should in

degrees, or to prision correccional, if there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstance is present (par
Penal Code. Yet, if the proper penalty to be imposed is prision mayor, regardless of the fact that a reduction by two degrees is proper
be allowed.

paragraph involving the same range of penalty, we both allow and disallow the application of Article 64(5), Article 68, and Article 69
ded by R.A.
e determination of the proper penalty and limiting fine only to cases punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. It is unfair because an
n temporal may only be sentenced to six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correccional minimum because of privileged mitigati
thereof even if he has the same number of privileged mitigating circumstances as the former has.

ed to the reduction of the penalty as a matter of right pursuant to Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code, which reads:

hen the offender is a minor under eighteen years and his case is one coming under the provisions of the paragraph next to the last of

not exempted from liability by reason of the court having declared that he acted with discernment, a discretionary penalty shall be imp

e penalty next lover than that prescribed by law shall be imposed, but always in the proper period.
 Section 17 of R.A. No. 7659, we can be at liberty to apply the Revised Penal Code in one aspect and not to apply it in another.

uld be prision correccional pursuant to the second paragraph of Section 20 of R.A. No. 6425, as amended by Section 17 of R.A. No. 7
or; and (b) the presence of two or more mitigating circumstances not offset by any mitigating circumstances or of a privileged mitigatin

es under the Revised Penal Code in their technical terms, hence also their technical signification and effects, then what should govern

e, or its amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be that wh
to that prescribed by the Code for the offense.

penalized under the Dangerous Drugs Act (R.A. No. 6425), as amended, the latter offenses would now be considered as punished u

. 4203) also provides that:

o an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall no

the Indeterminate Sentence Law: (1) offenses punished by the Revised Penal Code, and (2) offenses punished by other laws (or spe

hich is thus appropriately titled CRIMES AND PENALTIES. To simplify further, a crime is deemed punished under the Revised Penal

ned and penalized by the Revised Penal Code but by such other law.

y therefor are found in the said Code, and it is deemed punished by a special law if its definition and the penalty therefor are found in
al Code. The reason is quite simple. It is still the special law that defines the offense and imposes a penalty therefor, although it adop
ble" by the Revised Penal Code.

e Revised Penal Code in drug cases, offenses related to drugs should now be considered as punished under the Revised Penal Cod
participation (Article 16), accessory penalties (Articles 40-45), application of penalties to principals, accomplices, and accessories (Ar

enal Code does not make an offense under the Dangerous Drugs Act an offense punished by the Revised Penal Code. Consequent
n the accused should be that whose minimum should not be less than the minimum prescribed by the special law (the Dangerous Dru

II

ugs Act is a complex one composed of three distinct penalties, viz., prision correccional, prision mayor, and reclusion temporal, and t
g that under the said second paragraph of Section 20 the penalty depends on the quantity of the drug subject of the criminal transact
enalty depending on the quantity of the drug involved. Thereafter, applying the modifying circumstances pursuant to Article 64 of the
penalty should be prision correccional, but there is one mitigating and no aggravating circumstance, then the penalty to be imposed sh

d to determine the periods of the corresponding penalties, or even reduce the penalty by degrees, in no case should such graduation
second paragraph of Section 20 shall each be considered as an independent principal penalty, and that the lowest penalty should in

degrees, or to prision correccional, if there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstance is present (par
Penal Code. Yet, if the proper penalty to be imposed is prision mayor, regardless of the fact that a reduction by two degrees is proper
be allowed.

paragraph involving the same range of penalty, we both allow and disallow the application of Article 64(5), Article 68, and Article 69
ded by R.A.
e determination of the proper penalty and limiting fine only to cases punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. It is unfair because an
n temporal may only be sentenced to six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correccional minimum because of privileged mitigati
thereof even if he has the same number of privileged mitigating circumstances as the former has.

ed to the reduction of the penalty as a matter of right pursuant to Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code, which reads:

hen the offender is a minor under eighteen years and his case is one coming under the provisions of the paragraph next to the last of

not exempted from liability by reason of the court having declared that he acted with discernment, a discretionary penalty shall be imp

e penalty next lover than that prescribed by law shall be imposed, but always in the proper period.

Section 17 of R.A. No. 7659, we can be at liberty to apply the Revised Penal Code in one aspect and not to apply it in another.

novelty and importance of the issues raised on the effects of R.A. No. 7659 in amending R.A. No. 6425, the same was referred to and

, Guagua, Pampanga.
 days after its publication in two (2) national newspapers of general circulation," and it was so published in the December 16, 1993 iss

vs. Almencion, 25 Phil. 648 (1913); Peoplevs. Moran, et al., 44 Phil. 387 (1923); People vs. Parel, 44 Phil. 437 (1923); People vs. Ta

Director of the Bureau of Prisons, L-30026, January 30, 1971, 37 SCRA 420.
ply to the quantities and their penalties provided in the first paragraph, the penalties therein being the same regardless of whether the

r and forest products under Arts. 308, 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code by reference.

ust like the penalty for treason by a resident alien under Article 114 of the Revised Penal Code.

CRA 22. In his sponsorship speech of Senate Bill No. 891 as Chairman of the Special Committee on the Death Penalty, Senator M. T
actually was repealed by the enactment of a special law referring to drugs. But since we were only amending the Revised Penal Cod
on another, or distribution of prohibited drugs, planting or cultivation of any plant, which is a source of prohibited drugs, maintenance o

ime when, and the circumstances under which, the subject-matter to be construed, such as a custom or statute, originated (Black's L

39 (1952); People vs. Moises, et al., G.R. L-32495, August 13, 1975, 66, SCRA 151.

ck's Law Dictionary, 4th ed., 953).

Lawphil Main Menu

Constitution

Statutes

Jurisprudence

Judicial Issuances
 Executive Issuances

Treatise

Legal Link