NUMBER 16

People of the Philippines vs. Martin Simon

G.R. NO. 93028, JULY 29 1994
FACTS:
On October 22, 1988, at Guagua, Pampanga, Martin Simon sold tea bags which allegedly
contained marijuana to a Narcotics Command (NARCOM) poseur-buyer. He was later arrested
and charged with violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425 or the Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972.The confiscated 4 tea bags, weighing a total of 3.8 grams, when subjected to
laboratory examination, were found positive for marijuana. Simon denied the accusation against
him, claiming that on the day of question, he was picked up by the police at their house while
watching TV. He denied knowledge of the marked money or the 4 teabags of dried marijuana
leaves.
Simon was later convicted by the trial court and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of life
imprisonment, to pay a fine of twenty thousand pesos and to pay the costs.
ISSUE: W/N THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE LOWER COURTS IS CORRECT
RULING:
NO, since there is an overlapping error in the provisions on the penalty of reclusion perpetua by
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 minimum of the penalty where the marijuana involved is 750
grams or more. To harmonize such conflicting provisions in order to give effect to the whole
law, the court hereby hold that the penalty to be imposed where the quantity of the drugs
involved is less than the quantities stated in the first paragraph shall range from prision
correccional to reclusion temporal, and not reclusion perpetua. This is also concordant with the
fundamental rule in criminal law that all doubts should be construed in a manner favorable to the
accused.
The court held that Republic Act No. 6425, as now amended by Republic Act No. 7659, has
unqualifiedly adopted the penalties under the Revised Penal Code in their technical terms, hence
with their technical signification and effects. In fact, for purposes of determining the maximum of
said sentence, the court have applied the provisions of the amended Section 20 of said law to
arrive at prision correccional and Article 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 punished by and
under the Revised Penal Code. Correlatively, to determine the minimum, the court applied first
part of the aforesaid Section 1 which directs that “in imposing a prison sentence for an offense
punished by the Revised Penal Code, or its amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to
an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the
attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of said Code, and
the minimum which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the
Code for the offense.
Thus, in the case at bar, appellant should be begrudged the benefit of a minimum sentence within
the range of arresto mayor, the penalty next lower to prision correccional which is the maximum
range have fixed through the application of Articles 61 and 71 of the Revised Penal Code. For,
with fealty to the law, the court may set the minimum sentence at 6 months of arresto
mayor, instead of 6 months and 1 day of prision correccional.