8/11/15, 5:25 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 234Page
1 of 40
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f1c13ad26266a8888000a0094004f00ee/p/AJX290/?username=GuestVOL.
234, JULY 29, 1994 555People vs. SimonG.R. No. 93028. July 29,
1994.*PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,plaintiff-appellee,vs.MARTIN SIMON y
SUNGA,**
respondent.CriminalLaw;DangerousDrugsAct;Evidence;Tosustainaconviction
for selling prohibited drugs, the sale must be clearly
andunmistakablyestablished.Tosustainaconvictionforsellingprohibiteddrugs,thesalemustbeclearlyandunmistakablyestablished.Tosellmeanstogive,whetherformoneyoranyothermaterialconsideration.Itmust,therefore,beestablishedbeyonddoubtthatappellantactuallysoldanddeliveredtwoteabagsofmarijuanadriedleavestoSgt.Lopez,whoactedastheposeur-buyer,
in exchange for two twenty-peso bills._______________* EN
BANC.**ThiscasewasinitiallyraffledtotheSecondDivisionoftheCourtbutdue
to the 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 accepted by
theCourtenbancpursuanttoCircularNo.2-89andBarMatterNo.209,asamended.556556
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDPeople vs. Simon8/11/15, 5:25 PM
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 234Page 2 of 40
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f1c13ad26266a8888000a0094004f00ee/p/AJX290/?username=GuestSame;
Same; Same; The practice of entrapping drug
traffickersthroughtheutilizationofposeur-buyersissusceptibletomistake,harassment,extortionandabuse.Weareawarethatthepracticeofentrappingdrugtraffickersthroughtheutilizationofposeur-buyersissusceptibletomistake,harassment,extortionandabuse.Nonetheless,
such causes for judicial apprehension and doubt do
notobtaininthecaseatbar.Appellantsentrapmentandarrestwerenoteffectedinahaphazardway,forasurveillancewasconductedbytheteambeforethebuy-bustoperationwaseffected.Noillmotive
was or could be attributed to them, aside from the fact
thattheyarepresumedtohaveregularlyperformedtheirofficialduty.Suchlackofdubiousmotivecoupledwiththepresumptionofregularity
in the performance of official duty, as well as the findingsof the
trial court on the credibility of witnesses, should prevail
overtheself-servinganduncorroboratedclaimofappellantofhavingbeenframed,erectedasitisuponthemereshiftingsandsofanalibi.Same;Same;Same;Thecorpusdelictiofthecrimehasbeenfullyprovedwithcertaintyandconclusiveness.WhenthedrugseizedwassubmittedtotheCrimeLaboratoryServiceofthethenPhilippineConstabulary-IntegratedNationalPolice(PC-INP)atCampOlivasforexamination,P/Cpl.MarlynSalangad,aforensicchemisttherein,confirmedinherTechnicalReportNo.NB-448-88thatthecontentsofthefourteabagsconfiscatedfromappellantwere
positive for and had a total weight of 3.8 grams of
marijuana.Thus,thecorpusdelictiofthecrimehadbeenfullyprovedwithcertainty
and
conclusiveness.Same;Same;Same;Witnesses;Minorerrorordiscrepancyneither
impairs the essential integrity of the prosecution evidence
asawholenorreflectsonthewitnesshonesty.Even,assumingarguendothattheprosecutioncommittedanerroronwhoactuallyseizedthemarijuanafromappellant,suchanerrorordiscrepancyrefersonlytoaminormatterand,assuch,neitherimpairstheessentialintegrityoftheprosecutionevidenceasawholenorreflects
on the witnesses
honesty.Same;Same;Same;Nolaworjurisprudencerequiresthatanarrest or
seizure, to be valid, be witnessed by a relative, a
barangayofficialoranyothercivilianorbeaccompaniedbythetakingofpictures.Again,appellantcontendsthattherewasneitherarelativeofhisnoranybarangayofficialorciviliantowitnesstheseizure.Hedecriesthelackofpicturestakenbefore,duringand8/11/15,
5:25 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 234Page 3 of 40
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f1c13ad26266a8888000a0094004f00ee/p/AJX290/?username=Guestafterhisarrest.Moreover,hewasnotreportedtoorbookedinthecustodyofanybarangayofficialorpoliceauthorities.Theseareabsurddisputations.Nolaworjurisprudencerequiresthatanarrest
or seizure, to be valid,557VOL. 234, JULY 29, 1994 557People vs.
Simonbe witnessed by a relative, a barangay official or any other
civilian,or be accompanied by the taking of
pictures.Same;Same;Same;ConstitutionalLaw;Courtfindsanddeclarestheexhibitsinadmissibleinevidence.However,wefindandherebydeclaretheaforementionedexhibitsinadmissibleinevidence.Appellantsconformancetothesedocumentsaredeclarationsagainstinterestandtacitadmissionsofthecrimecharged.Theywereobtainedinviolationofhisrightasapersonundercustodialinvestigationforthecommissionofanoffense,there
being nothing in the records to show that he was assisted
bycounsel.Althoughappellantmanifestedduringthecustodialinvestigationthathewaivedhisrighttocounsel,thewaiverwasnot
made in writing and in the presence of counsel, hence
whateverincriminatoryadmissionorconfessionmaybeextractedfromhim,either
verbally or in writing, is not allowable in
evidence.Same;Same;Same;Same;Thecommissionoftheoffenseofillegal
sale of prohibited drugs requires merely the consummation ofthe
selling transaction.Notwithstanding the objectionability of
theaforesaidexhibits,appellantcannottherebybeextricatedfromhispredicamentsincehiscriminalparticipationintheillegalsaleofmarijuanahasbeensufficientlyproven.Thecommissionoftheoffenseofillegalsaleofprohibiteddrugsrequiresmerelytheconsummationofthesellingtransactionwhichhappensthemoment
the buyer receives the drug from the seller. In the
presentcase,andinlightoftheprecedingdiscussion,thissalehasbeenascertained
beyond any peradventure of doubt.Same; Same; Same;
Drug-pushingwhendoneonasmallscalebelongstothatclassofcrimesthatmaybecommittedatanytime,and
in any place.Appellant then asseverates that it is
improbable8/11/15, 5:25 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME
234Page 4 of 40
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f1c13ad26266a8888000a0094004f00ee/p/AJX290/?username=Guestthathewouldsellmarijuanatoatotalstranger.Wetakethisopportunitytoonceagainreiteratethedoctrinalrulethatdrug-pushing,
when done on a small scale as in this case, belongs to thatclass of
crimes that may be committed at any time and in any place.It is not
contrary to human experience for a drug pusher to sell to
atotalstranger,forwhatmattersisnotanexistingfamiliaritybetweenthebuyerandsellerbuttheiragreementandtheactsconstituting
the sale and delivery of the marijuana leaves.Same; Same;
Penalties; Court holds that in the instant case
theimposablepenaltyunderRepublicActNo.6425asamendedbyRepublicActNo.7659isprisioncorreccional.Forthenonce,wehold
that in the instant case the imposable penalty under RepublicAct
No. 6425, as558558 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDPeople vs.
SimonamendedbyRepublicActNo.7659,isprisioncorreccional,tobetaken
from the medium period thereof pursuant to Article 64 of
theRevisedPenalCode,therebeingnoattendantmitigatingoraggravating
circumstance.DAVIDE, JR.,J., Concurring and Dissenting
OpinionCriminal Law; Dangerous Drugs Act; Evidence; The mere use
bya special law of a penalty found in the Revised Penal Code can by
nomeansmakeanoffensethereunderanoffensepunishedorpunishablebytheRevisedPenalCode.Itisthusclearthatanoffense
is
punishedbytheRevisedPenalCodeifbothitsdefinitionandthepenaltythereforarefoundinthesaidCode,anditisdeemedpunishedbyaspeciallawifitsdefinitionandthepenaltythereforarefoundinthespeciallaw.Thatthelatterimportsorborrows
from the Revised Penal Code its nomenclature of
penaltiesdoesnotmakeanoffenseinthespeciallawpunishedbyorpunishableundertheRevisedPenalCode.Thereasonisquitesimple.Itisstillthespeciallawthatdefinestheoffenseandimposesapenaltytherefor,althoughitadoptstheCodes8/11/15,
5:25 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 234Page 5 of 40
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f1c13ad26266a8888000a0094004f00ee/p/AJX290/?username=Guestnomenclature
of penalties. In short, the mere use by a special law
ofapenaltyfoundintheRevisedPenalCodecanbynomeansmakeanoffensethereunderanoffensepunishedorpunishablebytheRevised
Penal Code. APPEAL from a judgment of the Regional TrialCourt of
Guagua, Pampanga, Br. 51.The facts are stated in the opinion of the
Court. The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. Ricardo M.
Sampang for
accused-appellant.REGALADO,J.:Hereinaccused-appellantMartinSimonySungawaschargedonNovember10,1988withaviolationofSection4,ArticleIIofRepublicActNo.6425,asamended,otherwiseknownastheDangerousDrugsActof1972,underanindictmentallegingthatonoraboutOctober22,1988,
at Barangay Sto. Cristo, Guagua, Pampanga, he
soldfourteabagsofmarijuanatoaNarcoticsCommand(NARCOM)poseur-buyerinconsiderationofthesumofP40.00,
which tea bags, when subjected to laboratory559VOL. 234, JULY 29,
1994 559People vs. Simonexamination, were found positive for
marijuana.1EventuallyarraignedwiththeassistanceofcounselonMarch 2,
1989, after his rearrest following his escape
fromCampOlivas,SanFernando,Pampangawherehewastemporarily detained,2
he pleaded not guilty. He voluntarilywaived his right to a
pre-trial conference,3 after which trialon the merits ensued and
was duly
concluded.ITheevidenceonrecordshowsthataconfidentialinformant,lateridentifiedasaNARCOMoperative,informedthepoliceunitatCampOlivas,SanFernando,Pampanga,
of the illegal drug activities of a certain
AlyasPusaatSto.Cristo,Guagua,Pampanga.Capt.Francisco8/11/15, 5:25
PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 234Page 6 of 40
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f1c13ad26266a8888000a0094004f00ee/p/AJX290/?username=GuestBustamante,CommandingOfficerofthe3rdNarcoticsRegionalUnitinthecamp,thenformedabuy-bustteamcomposed
of Sgt. Buenaventura Lopez, Pfc. Virgilio
VillaruzandSgt.DomingoPejoro,allmembersofthesameunit.After securing
marked money from Bustamante, the
team,togetherwiththeirinformant,proceededtoSto.Cristoaftertheyhadcoordinatedwiththepoliceauthoritiesandbarangay
officers thereof. When they reached the place,
theconfidentialinformerpointedoutappellanttoLopezwhoconsequentlyapproachedappellantandaskedhimifhehad
marijuana. Appellant answered in the affirmative andLopez offered
to buy two tea bags. Appellant then left
and,uponreturningshortlythereafter,handedtoLopeztwomarijuana tea
bags and Lopez gave him the marked moneyamounting to P40.00 as
payment. Lopez then scratched hishead as a pre-arranged signal to
his companions who werestationed around ten to fifteen meters away,
and the
teamclosedinonthem.Thereupon,Villaruz,whowastheheadoftheback-upteam,arrestedappellant.Thelatterwasthenbroughtbytheteamtothe3rdNarcoticsRegionalUnitatCampOlivasonboardajeepandhewasplacedunder
custodial investigation, with Sgt._______________1 Original Record,
2; Criminal Case No. G-2320, Regional Trial Court,Branch 51,
Guagua, Pampanga.2 Ibid., 11.3 Ibid., 23.560560 SUPREME COURT
REPORTS ANNOTATEDPeople vs. SimonPejoro as the
investigator.4Pfc.VillaruzcorroboratedLopeztestimony,claimingthathesawthedealthattranspiredbetweenLopezandtheappellant.Healsoaverredthathewastheonewhoconfiscatedthemarijuanaandtookthemarkedmoneyfrom
appellant.5Sgt. Domingo Pejoro, for his part, declared that
although8/11/15, 5:25 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME
234Page 7 of 40
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f1c13ad26266a8888000a0094004f00ee/p/AJX290/?username=Guesthe
was part of the buy-bust team, he was stationed
farthestfromtherestoftheothermembers,thatis,aroundtwohundredmetersawayfromhiscompanions.HedidnotactuallyseethesalethattranspiredbetweenLopezandappellantbuthesawhisteammatesaccostingappellantafterthelattersarrest.Hewaslikewisetheonewhoconductedthecustodialinvestigationofappellantwhereinthelatterwasapprisedofhisrightstoremainsilent,toinformationandtocounsel.Appellant,however,orallywaived
his right to
counsel.6PejoroalsoclaimedhavingpreparedExhibitG,theReceiptofPropertySeized/Confiscatedwhichappellantsigned,admittingthereintheconfiscationoffourteabagsof
marijuana dried leaves in his possession. Pejoro likewiseinformed
the court below that, originally, what he placed
onthereceiptwasthatonlyonemarijuanaleafwasconfiscatedinexchangeforP20.00.However,LopezandVillaruzcorrectedhisentrybytellinghimtoputtwo,instead
of one and 40, instead of 20. He agreed to
thecorrectionsincetheyweretheoneswhowerepersonallyand directly
involved in the purchase of the marijuana andthe arrest of
appellant.7Dr.PedroS.Calara,amedicalofficeratCampOlivas,examined
appellant at 5:30 P.M. of the day after the
lattersapprehension,andtheresultswerepracticallynormalexceptforhisrelativelyhighbloodpressure.Thedoctoralso
did not find any trace of physical injury on the
personofappellant.Thenextday,heagainexaminedappellantdue to the
latters complaint of gastrointestinal pain. In
thecourseoftheexamination,Dr.Calaradiscoveredthatappellant has a
history of peptic ulcer, which_________________4 TSN, April 6,
1989, 5-32.5 Ibid., May 5, 1989, 2.6 Ibid., May 24, 1989, 18; May
5, 1989, 11.7 Ibid., May 24, 1989, 21-24.561VOL. 234, JULY 29, 1994
5618/11/15, 5:25 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 234Page
8 of 40
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f1c13ad26266a8888000a0094004f00ee/p/AJX290/?username=GuestPeople
vs. Simoncauses him to experience abdominal pain and
consequentlyvomit blood. In the afternoon, appellant came back with
thesamecomplaintbut,exceptforthegastro-intestinalpain,his physical
condition remained
normal.8Asexpected,appellanttenderedanantipodalversionofthe
attendant facts, claiming that on the day in question,
ataround4:30P.M.,hewaswatchingtelevisionwiththemembersofhisfamilyintheirhousewhenthreepersons,whomhehadnevermetbeforesuddenlyarrived.Relyingontheassurancethattheywouldjustinquireaboutsomethingfromhimattheirdetachment,appellantboarded
a jeep with them. He was told that they were goingto Camp Olivas,
but he later noticed that they were takinga different route. While
on board, he was told that he was apusher so he attempted to alight
from the jeep but he
washandcuffedinstead.Whentheyfinallyreachedthecamp,he was ordered
to sign some papers and, when he
refused,hewasboxedinthestomacheightorninetimesbySgt.Pejoro.Hewasthencompelledtoaffixhissignatureandfingerprints
on the documents presented to him. He deniedknowledge of the P20.00
or the dried marijuana leaves,
andinsistedthatthetwenty-pesobillcamefromthepocketofPejoro.Moreover,thereasonwhyhevomitedbloodwasbecause
of the blows he suffered at the hands of Pejoro.
HeadmittedhavingescapedfromtheNARCOMofficebutclaimed that he did so
since he could no longer endure
themaltreatmenttowhichhewasbeingsubjected.Afterescaping,heproceededtothehouseofhisuncle,BienvenidoSunga,atSanMatias,Guagua,reachingtheplaceataround6:30or7:30P.M.There,heconsultedaquackdoctorand,later,hewasaccompaniedbyhissistertotheRomanaPanganDistrictHospitalatFloridablanca,Pampanga
where he was confined for three days.9Appellants brother, Norberto
Simon, testified to the
factthatappellantwashospitalizedatFloridablanca,Pampangaafterundergoingabdominalpainandvomitingofblood.Helikewiseconfirmedthatappellanthadbeensuffering
from peptic ulcer even before the latters arrest.10Also, Dr. Evelyn
Gomez-Aguas, a8/11/15, 5:25 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
VOLUME 234Page 9 of 40
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f1c13ad26266a8888000a0094004f00ee/p/AJX290/?username=Guest_________________8
Ibid., June 14, 1989, 3-22.9 Ibid., July 10, 1989, 5-26.10 Ibid.,
July 17, 1989, 8-16.562562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDPeople
vs.
SimonresidentphysicianofRomanaPanganDistrictHospital,declaredthatshetreatedappellantforthreedaysduetoabdominalpain,butherexaminationrevealedthatthecause
for this ailment was appellants peptic ulcer. She
didnotseeanysignofslightorseriousexternalinjury,abrasion or
contusion on his
body.11OnDecember4,1989,afterweighingtheevidencepresented,thetrialcourtrenderedjudgmentconvictingappellant
for a violation of Section 4, Article II of RepublicAct No. 6425,
as amended, and sentencing him to suffer
thepenaltyoflifeimprisonment,topayafineoftwentythousandpesosandtopaythecosts.Thefourteabagsofmarijuanadriedleaveswerelikewiseorderedconfiscatedin
favor of the
Government.12AppellantnowpraystheCourttoreversetheaforementioned
judgment of the lower court, contending
inhisassignmentoferrorsthatthelattererredin(1)notupholdinghisdefenseofframe-up,(2)notdeclaringExhibitG(ReceiptofPropertySeized/Confiscated)inadmissibleinevidence,and(3)convictinghimofaviolation
of the Dangerous Drugs Act.13At the outset, it should be noted that
while the
Peoplesrealtheoryandevidenceistotheeffectthatappellantactuallysoldonlytwoteabagsofmarijuanadriedleaves,whiletheothertwoteabagsweremerelyconfiscatedsubsequentlyfromhispossession,14thelatternotbeinginanywayconnectedwiththesale,theinformationallegesthat
he sold and delivered four tea bags of marijuana driedleaves.15 In
view thereof, the issue presented for
resolutioninthisappealismerelytheactofsellingthetwoteabagsallegedly
committed by appellant, and does not include the8/11/15, 5:25 PM
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 234Page 10 of 40
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f1c13ad26266a8888000a0094004f00ee/p/AJX290/?username=Guestdisparate
and distinct issue of illegal possession of the othertwo tea bags
which separate offense is not charged
herein.16Tosustainaconvictionforsellingprohibiteddrugs,thesale must
be clearly and unmistakably established.17 To sellmeans
to_______________11Ibid., August 18, 1989, 36, 41-43, 47-49.12
Original Record, 174-175; per Judge Arsenio P. Roman.13 Brief for
Accused-Appellant, 3; Rollo, 54.14 Exhibits F and G, Folder of
Exhibits; TSN, July 10, 1989, 53.15 Original Record, 2.16 See
People vs. Salamat, G.R. No. 103295, August 20, 1993.17 People vs.
Alilin, G.R. No. 84363, March 4, 1992, 206 SCRA 772.563VOL. 234,
JULY 29, 1994 563People vs.
Simongive,whetherformoneyoranyothermaterialconsideration.18Itmust,therefore,beestablishedbeyonddoubtthatappellantactuallysoldanddeliveredtwoteabags
of marijuana dried leaves to Sgt. Lopez, who acted asthe
poseur-buyer, in exchange for two twenty-peso
bills.Afteranassiduousreviewandcalibrationoftheevidenceadducedbybothparties,wearemorallycertainthatappellantwascaughtinflagrante
delictoengagingintheillegalsaleofprohibiteddrugs.Theprosecutionwasable
to prove beyond a scintilla of doubt that appellant,
onOctober22,1988,didselltwoteabagsofmarijuanadriedleaves to Sgt.
Lopez. The latter himself creditably testifiedas to how the sale
took place and his testimony was
amplycorroboratedbyhisteammates.Asbetweenthestraightforward,positiveandcorroboratedtestimonyofLopezandthebaredenialsandnegativetestimonyofappellant,theformerundeniablydeservesgreaterweightand
is more entitled to
credence.Weareawarethatthepracticeofentrappingdrugtraffickersthroughtheutilizationofposeur-buyersissusceptibletomistake,harassment,extortionandabuse.198/11/15,
5:25 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 234Page 11 of 40
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f1c13ad26266a8888000a0094004f00ee/p/AJX290/?username=GuestNonetheless,suchcausesforjudicialapprehensionanddoubtdonotobtaininthecaseatbar.Appellantsentrapmentandarrestwerenoteffectedinahaphazardway,forasurveillancewasconductedbytheteambeforethe
buy-bust operation was
effected.20Noillmotivewasorcouldbeattributedtothem,asidefromthefactthattheyarepresumedtohaveregularlyperformedtheirofficialduty.21Suchlackofdubiousmotivecoupledwiththepresumptionofregularityintheperformanceofofficialduty,aswellasthefindingsofthetrialcourtonthecredibility
of witnesses, should prevail over the
self-servinganduncorroboratedclaimofappellantofhavingbeenframed,22
erected as it is upon the mere shifting sands of
analibi.Totopitall,appellantwascaughtred-handeddelivering_________________18SeePeoplevs.Querrer,
G.R.No.97147,July15,1992,211SCRA502.19 People vs. Lati, G.R. No.
70393, April 17, 1990, 184 SCRA 336.20 TSN, May 5, 1989, 5.21 Sec.
3(m), Rule 131, Rules of
Court.22SeePeoplevs.Labra,G.R.No.98427,November20,1992,215SCRA
822.564564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDPeople vs.
Simonprohibiteddrugs,andwhiletherewasadelimitedchancefor him to
controvert the charge, he does not appear to haveplausibly done
so.WhenthedrugseizedwassubmittedtotheCrimeLaboratoryServiceofthethenPhilippineConstabulary-IntegratedNationalPolice(PC-INP)atCampOlivasforexamination,P/Cpl.MarlynSalangad,aforensicchemisttherein,23
confirmed in her Technical Report No.
NB-448-88thatthecontentsofthefourteabagsconfiscatedfromappellantwerepositiveforandhadatotalweightof3.8grams
of marijuana.24 Thus, thecorpus delicti of the crime8/11/15, 5:25
PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 234Page 12 of 40
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f1c13ad26266a8888000a0094004f00ee/p/AJX290/?username=Guesthad
been fully proved with certainty and
conclusiveness.25Appellantwouldwanttomakecapitaloftheallegedinconsistenciesandimprobabilitiesinthetestimoniesoftheprosecutionwitnesses.Foremost,accordingtohim,isthe
matter of who really confiscated the marijuana tea
bagsfromhimsince,inopencourt,Pejoroassertedthathehadnothing to do
with the confiscation of the marijuana, but
intheaforementionedReceiptofPropertySeized/Confiscated, he signed
it as the one who seized
thesame.26SufficeittosaythatwhetheritwasVillaruzorPejorowho
confiscated the marijuana will not really matter sincesuch is not
an element of the offense with which
appellantischarged.Whatisunmistakablyclearisthatthemarijuanawasconfiscatedfromthepossessionofappellant.Even,assumingarguendothattheprosecutioncommittedanerroronwhoactuallyseizedthemarijuanafrom
appellant, such an error or discrepancy refers only toa minor
matter and, as such, neither impairs the essentialintegrity of the
prosecution evidence as a whole nor
reflectsonthewitnesseshonesty.27Besides,therewasclearlyamere
imprecision of language since Pejoro obviously meantthat he did not
take part in the physical taking of the
drugfromthepersonofappellant,butheparticipatedinthelegal seizure or
confiscation_______________23 TSN, August 18, 1989, 3.24 Ibid.,
id., 12; Exhibit M, Folder of Exhibits.25 People vs. Celiz, et al.,
G.R. No. 92849, October 20, 1992, 214 SCRA755.26 Brief for
Accused-Appellant, 4-5; Rollo, 55-56.27 People vs. Fernandez, G.R.
No. 86495, May 13, 1992, 209 SCRA 1.565VOL. 234, JULY 29, 1994
565People vs. Simonthereof as the investigator of their
unit.8/11/15, 5:25 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME
234Page 13 of 40
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f1c13ad26266a8888000a0094004f00ee/p/AJX290/?username=GuestNext,appellantadducestheargumentthatthetwenty-pesobillsallegedlyconfiscatedfromhimwerenotpowderedforfinger-printingpurposescontrarytothenormalprocedureinbuy-bustoperations.28Thisomissionhas
been satisfactorily explained by Pfc. Virgilio Villaruz inhis
testimony, as follows:Q Is it the standard operating procedure of
your unit thatin conducting such operation you do not
anymoreprovide a powder (sic) on the object so as to determinethe
thumbmark or identity of the persons taking holdof the object?A We
were not able to put powder on thesedenominations because we are
lacking that kind ofmaterial in our office since that item can be
purchasedonly in Manila and only few are producing that, sir.x x xQ
Is it not a fact that your office is within (the) P.C.Crime
Laboratory, CIS, as well as the office of NICA?A Our office is only
adjacent to those offices but wecannot make a request for that
powder because they,themselves, are using that in their own work,
sir.29Theforegoingexplanationaside,weagreethatthefailureto mark the
money bills used for entrapment purposes canunder no mode of
rationalization be fatal to the case of
theprosecutionbecausetheDangerousDrugsActpunishesanypersonwho,unlessauthorizedbylaw,shallsell,administer,deliver,giveawaytoanother,distribute,dispatchintransitortransportanyprohibiteddrug,orshallactasabrokerinanyofsuchtransactions.30Thedusting
of said bills with phosphorescent powder is only
anevidentiarytechniqueforidentificationpur-poses,whichidentificationcanbesuppliedbyotherspeciesofevidence.Again,
appellant contends that there was neither a
relativeofhisnoranybarangayofficialorciviliantowitnesstheseizure.
He decries the lack of pictures taken before, duringand after
his_______________28 Brief for Accused-Appellant, 6; Rollo,
57.8/11/15, 5:25 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 234Page
14 of 40
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f1c13ad26266a8888000a0094004f00ee/p/AJX290/?username=Guest29
TSN, May 5, 1989, 7.30 People vs. Castiller, G.R. No. 87783, August
6, 1990, 188 SCRA 376.566566 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDPeople
vs.
Simonarrest.Moreover,hewasnotreportedtoorbookedinthecustodyofanybarangayofficialorpoliceauthorities.31Theseareabsurddisputations.Nolaworjurisprudencerequires
that an arrest or seizure, to be valid, be witnessedby a relative,
a barangay official or any other civilian, or beaccompanied by the
taking of pictures. On the contrary,
thepoliceenforcershavingcaughtappellantinflagrantedelicto, they
were not only authorized but were also underthe obligation to
effect a warrantless arrest and
seizure.Likewise,contrarytoappellantscontention,therewasanarrestreportpreparedbythepoliceinconnectionwithhisapprehension.SaidBookingSheetandArrestReport32states,
inter alia, that suspect was arrested for selling
twoteabagsofsuspectedmarijuanadriedleavesandtheconfiscation of
another two tea bags of suspected marijuanadried leaves. Below
these remarks was affixed
appellantssignature.Inthesamemanner,thereceiptfortheseizedproperty,hereinbeforementioned,wassignedbyappellantwhereinheacknowledgedtheconfiscationofthemarkedbills
from him.33However, we find and hereby declare the
aforementionedexhibitsinadmissibleinevidence.Appellantsconformancetothesedocumentsaredeclarationsagainstinterestandtacitadmissionsofthecrimecharged.Theywereobtainedinviolationofhisrightasapersonundercustodialinvestigationforthecommissionofanoffense,therebeingnothingintherecordstoshowthathewasassistedbycounsel.34Althoughappellantmanifestedduringthecustodial
investigation that he waived his right to counsel,the waiver was
not made in writing and in the presence
ofcounsel,35hencewhateverincriminatoryadmissionorconfession may be
extracted from him, either verbally or
inwriting,isnotallowableinevidence.36Besides,thearrestreportisself-servingandhearsayandcaneasilybe8/11/15,
5:25 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 234Page 15 of 40
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f1c13ad26266a8888000a0094004f00ee/p/AJX290/?username=Guestconcocted
to implicate a suspect._______________31 Brief for
Accused-Appellant, 6-7; Rollo, 57-58.32 Exhibit F, Folder of
Exhibits.33 Exhibit G, ibid.34 People vs. Mauyao, G.R. No. 84525,
April 6, 1992, 207 SCRA 732.35 TSN, May 5, 1989, 11.36 Sec. 12(1),
Art. III, 1987 Constitution.567VOL. 234, JULY 29, 1994 567People
vs.
SimonNotwithstandingtheobjectionabilityoftheaforesaidexhibits,appellantcannottherebybeextricatedfromhispredicamentsincehiscriminalparticipationintheillegalsaleofmarijuanahasbeensufficientlyproven.Thecommission
of the offense of illegal sale of prohibited
drugsrequiresmerelytheconsummationofthesellingtransaction37whichhappensthemomentthebuyerreceives
the drug from the seller.38 In the present case,
andinlightoftheprecedingdiscussion,thissalehasbeenascertained
beyond any peradventure of doubt.Appellant then asseverates that it
is improbable that
hewouldsellmarijuanatoatotalstranger.39Wetakethisopportunitytoonceagainreiteratethedoctrinalrulethatdrug-pushing,whendoneonasmallscaleasinthiscase,belongstothatclassofcrimesthatmaybecommittedatanytimeandinanyplace.40Itisnotcontrarytohumanexperience
for a drug pusher to sell to a total stranger,41
forwhatmattersisnotanexistingfamiliaritybetweenthebuyerandsellerbuttheiragreementandtheactsconstituting
the sale and delivery of the marijuana
leaves.42Whiletheremaybeinstanceswheresuchsalecouldbeimprobable,takingintoconsiderationthediversecircumstancesofperson,timeandplace,aswellastheincredibilityofhowtheaccusedsupposedlyactedonthatoccasion,wecansafelysaythatthoseexceptionalparticulars
are not present in this case.8/11/15, 5:25 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATED VOLUME 234Page 16 of 40
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f1c13ad26266a8888000a0094004f00ee/p/AJX290/?username=GuestFinally,appellantcontendsthathewassubjectedtophysical
and mental torture by the arresting officers
whichcausedhimtoescapefromCampOlivasthenighthewasplacedundercustody.43Thisheassertstosupporthisexplanationastohowhissignaturesonthedocumentsearlier
discussed were supposedly obtained by_______________37 People vs.
Rumeral, G.R. No. 86320, August 5, 1991, 200 SCRA 194.38 People vs.
Sibug, G.R. No. 108520, January 24, 1994.39 Brief for
Accused-Appellant, 11; Rollo, 62.40 People vs. Tandoy, G.R. No.
80505, December 4, 1990, 192 SCRA 28.41 Cf. People vs. Cina, G.R.
No. 88220, October 1, 1990, 190 SCRA 199.42 People vs. Consuelo,
G.R. No. 77755, April 18, 1990, 184 SCRA 402.43 TSN, July 10, 1989,
12-13.568568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDPeople vs. Simonforce
and
coercion.Thedoctrineisnowtoowellembeddedinourjurisprudencethatforevidencetobebelieved,itmustnotonly
proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but
mustbecredibleinitselfsuchasthecommonexperienceandobservation of
mankind can approve as probable under
thecircumstances.44Theevidenceonrecordisbereftofanysupportforappellantsallegationofmaltreatment.Twodoctors,onefortheprosecution45andtheotherforthedefense,46testifiedontheabsenceofanytell-talesignorindicationofbodilyinjury,abrasionsorcontusionsontheperson
of appellant. What is evident is that the cause of
hisabdominalpainwashispepticulcerfromwhichhehadbeensufferingevenbeforehisarrest.47Hisownbrotherevencorroboratedthatfact,sayingthatappellanthashada
history of bleeding peptic ulcer.48Furthermore, if it is true that
appellant was
maltreatedatCampOlivas,hehadnoreasonwhatsoeverfornotdivulgingthesametohisbrotherwhowenttoseehimatthe
camp after his arrest and during his detention there.498/11/15,
5:25 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 234Page 17 of 40
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f1c13ad26266a8888000a0094004f00ee/p/AJX290/?username=GuestSignificantly,
he also did not even report the matter to theauthorities nor file
appropriate charges against the allegedmalefactors despite the
opportunity to do so50 and with
thelegalservicesofcounselbeingavailabletohim.Suchomissionsfunneldowntotheconclusionthatappellantsstory
is a pure
fabrication.These,andtheeventsearlierdiscussed,soundlyrefutehisallegationsthathisarrestwasbaselessandpremeditated
for the NARCOM agents were determined
toarresthimatallcosts.51Premeditatedornot,appellantsarrest was only
the culmination, the final act needed for
hisisolationfromsocietyanditwasprovidentialthatitcameabout after he
was caught in the very act of illicit trade ofprohibited drugs.
Accordingly, this
opinion___________________44Peoplevs.Eslaban,G.R.Nos.101211-12,February8,1993,218SCRA
534.45 TSN, June 14, 1989, 22.46 Ibid., August 18, 1989, 48.47
Ibid., July 17, 1989, 15-16.48 Ibid., October 23, 1988, 15-16.49
Ibid., July 17, 1989, 22; October 23, 1988, 15.50 Ibid., July 10,
1989, 26-27.51 Brief for Accused-Appellant, 4; Rollo, 55.569VOL.
234, JULY 29, 1994 569People vs.
Simoncouldhaveconcludedonanoteofaffirmanceofthejudgmentofthetrialcourt.However,RepublicActNo.6425,asamended,wasfurtheramendedbyRepublicActNo.7659effectiveDecember31,1993,52whichsupervenience
necessarily affects the original disposition
ofthiscaseandentailsadditionalquestionsoflawwhichweshall now
resolve.II8/11/15, 5:25 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME
234Page 18 of 40
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f1c13ad26266a8888000a0094004f00ee/p/AJX290/?username=GuestTheprovisionsoftheaforesaidamendatorylaw,pertinentto
the adjudication of the case at bar, are to this
effect:SEC.13.Sections3,4,5,7,8and9ofArt.IIofRepublicActNo.6425, as
amended, known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, arehereby
amended to read as follows:x x
xSEC.4.Sale,Administration,Delivery,DistributionandTransportationofProhibitedDrugs.Thepenaltyofreclusionperpetuatodeathandafinerangingfromfivehundredthousandpesostotenmillionpesosshallbeimposeduponanypersonwho,unlessauthorizedbylaw,shallsell,administer,deliver,giveawaytoanother,distribute,dispatchintransitortransportanyprohibiteddrug,orshallactasabroker
in any of such
transactions.xxxSEC.17.Section20,ArticleIVofRepublicActNo.6425,asamended,knownastheDangerousDrugsActof1972,isherebyamended
to read as
follows:Sec.20.ApplicationofPenalties,ConfiscationandForfeitureoftheProceedsorInstrumentoftheCrime.ThepenaltiesforoffensesunderSections
3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of Article II and Sections 14, 14-A, 15 and 16
ofArticle III of this Act shall be applied if the dangerous drugs
involved isin any of the following quantities:x x x5.750 grams or
more of indian hemp or marijuanax x x_________________52 Sec. 28 of
Republic Act No. 7659 provides that it shall take effect
fifteen(15)daysafteritspublicationintwo(2)nationalnewspapersofgeneralcirculation,anditwassopublishedintheDecember16,1993issuesoftheManila
Bulletin, Philippine Star, Malaya and Philippine Times
Journal.570570 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDPeople vs.
SimonOtherwise,ifthequantityinvolvedislessthantheforegoing8/11/15,
5:25 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 234Page 19 of 40
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f1c13ad26266a8888000a0094004f00ee/p/AJX290/?username=Guestquantities,thepenaltyshallrangefromprisioncorreccionaltoreclusion
perpetua depending upon the quantity.1.Considering that herein
appellant is being prosecuted forthe sale of four tea bags of
marijuana with a total weight
ofonly3.8gramsand,infact,standstobeconvictedforthesale of only two
of those tea bags, the initial inquiry
wouldbewhetherthepatentlyfavorableprovisionsofRepublicActNo.7659shouldbegivenretroactiveeffecttoentitlehim
to the lesser penalty provided thereunder, pursuant toArticle 22 of
the Revised Penal Code.Although Republic Act No. 6425 was enacted
as a speciallaw, albeit originally amendatory and in substitution
of theprevious Articles 190 to 194 of the Revised Penal Code,53
ithas long been settled that by force of Article 10 of said
CodethebeneficentprovisionsofArticle22thereofappliestoandshallbegivenretrospectiveeffecttocrimespunishedbyspeciallaws.54Theexceptioninsaidarticlewouldnotapplytothoseconvictedofdrugoffensessincehabitualdelinquency
refers to convictions for the third time or
moreofthecrimesofseriousorlessseriousphysicalinjuries,robo, hurto,
estafa or falsification.55Since, obviously, the favorable
provisions of Republic
ActNo.7659couldneitherhavethenbeeninvolvednorinvokedinthepresentcase,acorollaryquestionwouldbewhetherthiscourt,atthepresentstage,cansuasponteapply
the provisions of said Article 22 to reduce the
penaltytobeimposedonappellant.Thatissuehaslikewisebeenresolved in
the cited case ofPeople vs. Moran, et al.,ante.,thus:x x x. The
plain precept contained in article 22 of the Penal
Code,declaringtheretroactivityofpenallawsinsofarastheyarefavorabletopersonsaccusedofafelony,wouldbeuselessandnugatoryifthecourtsofjusticewerenotunderobligationtofulfillsuch
duty, irrespective_______________53 Title Five, Crimes Relative to
Opium and Other Prohibited Drugs.54 U.S. vs. Hocbo, 12 Phil. 304
(1908); U.S.vs.Parrone, 24Phil.29(1913);U.S. vs. Almencion, 25
Phil. 648 (1913); People vs. Moran,etal.,44Phil.387(1923);
Peoplevs.Parel, 44Phil.437(1923);Peoplevs.Tamayo,
61Phil.2258/11/15, 5:25 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME
234Page 20 of 40
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f1c13ad26266a8888000a0094004f00ee/p/AJX290/?username=Guest(1935).55
Article 62(5), Revised Penal Code.571VOL. 234, JULY 29, 1994
571People vs. Simonof whether or not the accused has applied for
it, just as would
alsoallprovisionsrelatingtotheprescriptionofthecrimeandthepenalty.IfthejudgmentwhichcouldbeaffectedandmodifiedbythereducedpenaltiesprovidedinRepublicActNo.7659hasalreadybecomefinalandexecutoryortheaccusedisservingsentencethereunder,thenpractice,procedureandpragmaticconsiderationswouldwarrantandnecessitatethematterbeingbroughttothejudicialauthoritiesforrelief
under a writ of habeas
corpus.562.Probablythroughoversight,anerroronthematterofimposable
penalties appears to have been committed in
thedraftingoftheaforesaidlaw,therebycallingforandnecessitating
judicial reconciliation and craftsmanship.As applied to the present
case, Section 4 of Republic ActNo. 6425, as now further amended,
imposes the penalty
ofreclusionperpetuatodeathandafinerangingfromP500,000.00toP10,000,000.00uponanypersonwhoshallunlawfullysell,administer,deliver,giveaway,distribute,dispatchintransitortransportanyprohibiteddrug.Thatpenalty,accordingtotheamendmenttoSection20ofthelaw,shallbeappliedifwhatisinvolvedis750gramsormoreofindianhempormarijuana;otherwise,ifthequantityinvolvedisless,thepenaltyshallrangefromprisioncorreccionaltoreclusionperpetuadependingupon
the quantity.In other words, there is here an overlapping error in
theprovisions on the penalty of reclusion perpetua by reason ofits
dual imposition, that is, as the maximum of the
penaltywherethemarijuanaislessthan750grams,andalsoasthe minimum of
the penalty where the marijuana involvedis 750 grams or more. The
same error has been
committedwithrespecttotheotherprohibitedandregulateddrugs8/11/15,
5:25 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 234Page 21 of 40
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f1c13ad26266a8888000a0094004f00ee/p/AJX290/?username=GuestprovidedinsaidSection20.Toharmonizesuchconflictingprovisionsinordertogiveeffecttothewholelaw,57wehereby
sold that the penalty to be imposed_________________56See Harden
vs. Director of Prisons, 81 Phil. 741 (1948); Gumabon,
etal.vs.DirectoroftheBureauofPrisons, L-30026,January30,1971,37SCRA
420.57LopezandSons,Inc.vs.CourtofTaxAppeals,etal.,
100Phil.850(1957).572572 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDPeople vs.
Simonwherethequantityofthedrugsinvolvedislessthanthequantitiesstatedinthefirstparagraphshallrangefromprision
correccional to reclusion temporal, and not
reclusionperpetua.Thisisalsoconcordantwiththefundamentalrule in
criminal law that all doubts should be construed ina manner
favorable to the
accused.3.Where,asinthiscase,thequantityofthedangerousdrugisonly3.8grams,hencecoveredbytheimposablerangeofpenaltiesunderthesecondparagraphofSection20,
as now modified, the law provides that the penalty shallbe taken
from said range depending upon the quantity
ofthedruginvolvedinthecase.Thepenaltyinsaidsecondparagraphconstitutesacomplexonecomposedofthreedistinctpenalties,thatis,prisioncorreccional,prisionmayor,andreclusiontemporal.Insuchasituation,theCodeprovidesthateachoneshallformaperiod,withthelightestofthembeingtheminimum,thenextasthemedium,
and the most severe as the maximum
period.58Ordinarily,andpursuanttoArticle64oftheCode,themitigating
and aggravating circumstances determine
whichperiodofsuchcomplexpenaltyshallbeimposedontheaccused. The
peculiarity of the second paragraph of Section20, however, is its
specific mandate, above quoted, that thepenalty shall instead
depend upon the quantity of the
drugsubjectofthecriminaltransactions.59Accordingly,byway8/11/15,
5:25 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 234Page 22 of 40
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f1c13ad26266a8888000a0094004f00ee/p/AJX290/?username=GuestofexceptiontoArticle77oftheCodeandtosubservethepurpose
of Section 20 of Republic Act No. 7659, each of
theaforesaidcomponentpenaltiesshallbeconsideredasaprincipalimposablepenaltydependingonthequantityofthedruginvolved.Thereby,themodifyingcircumstanceswillnotaltogetherbedisregarded.Sinceeachcomponentpenaltyofthetotalcomplexpenaltywillhavetobeimposedseparatelyasdeterminedbythequantityofthedruginvolved,thenthemodifyingcircumstancescanbeused
to fix the proper period of that component penalty, asshall
hereafter be
explained.Itwould,therefore,beinlinewiththeprovisionsofSection20inthecontextofouraforesaiddispositionthereon
that, unless________________58 Article 77, Revised Penal
Code.59Thisgraduatedschemeofpenaltiesisnotstatedwithregardanddoes
not apply to the quantities and their penalties provided in the
firstparagraph,thepenaltiesthereinbeingthesameregardlessofwhetherthe
quantities exceed those specified therein.573VOL. 234, JULY 29,
1994 573People vs. Simonthere are compelling reasons for a
deviation, the quantitiesof the drugs enumerated in its second
paragraph be dividedinto three, with the resulting quotient, and
double or
treblethesame,toberespectivelythebasesforallocatingthepenaltyproportionatelyamongthethreeaforesaidperiodsaccordingtotheseveritythereof.Thus,ifthemarijuanainvolvedisbelow250grams,thepenaltytobeimposedshallbeprisioncorreccional;from250to499grams,prisionmayor;and500to749grams,reclusiontemporal.Parenthetically,fineisimposedasaconjunctivepenaltyonly
if the penalty is reclusion perpetua to death.60Now, considering
the minimal quantity of the marijuanasubject of the case at bar,
the penalty of prision
correccionalisconsequentlyindicatedbut,again,anotherpreliminary8/11/15,
5:25 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 234Page 23 of 40
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f1c13ad26266a8888000a0094004f00ee/p/AJX290/?username=Guestand
cognate issue has first to be resolved.4.Prision
correccionalhasadurationof6monthsand1dayto6yearsand,asadivisiblepenalty,itconsistsofthreeperiodsasprovidedinthetextofandillustratedinthetableprovidedbyArticle76oftheCode.Thequestionis
whether or not in determining the penalty to be
imposed,whichisheretobetakenfromthepenaltyofprisioncorreccional,thepresenceorabsenceofmitigating,aggravatingorothercircumstancesmodifyingcriminalliability
should be taken into account.We are not unaware of cases in the
past wherein it
washeldthat,inimposingthepenaltyforoffensesunderspeciallaws,therulesonmitigatingoraggravatingcircumstancesundertheRevisedPenalCodecannotandshould
not be applied. A review of such doctrines as appliedin said cases,
however, reveals that the reason therefor
wasbecausethespeciallawsinvolvedprovidedtheirownspecific penalties
for the offenses punished thereunder,
andwhichpenaltieswerenottakenfromorwithreferencetothoseintheRevisedPenalCode.Sincethepenaltiesthenprovidedbythespeciallawsconcerneddidnotprovidefortheminimum,mediumormaximumperiods,itwouldconsequentlybeimpossibletoconsidertheaforestatedmodifyingcircumstanceswhosemainfunctionistodetermine
the period of the penalty in accordance with therules in Article 64
of the Code.Thisisalsotherationalefortheholdinginpreviouscases
that________________60 Sec. 4, in relation to Sec. 20, R.A. No.
7659.574574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDPeople vs. Simonthe
provisions of the Code on the graduation of penalties
bydegreescouldnotbegivensupplementaryapplicationtospeciallaws,sincethepenaltiesinthelatterwerenotcomponentsoforcontemplatedinthescaleofpenalties8/11/15,
5:25 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 234Page 24 of 40
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f1c13ad26266a8888000a0094004f00ee/p/AJX290/?username=GuestprovidedbyArticle71oftheformer.ThesuppletoryeffectoftheRevisedPenalCodetospeciallaws,asprovidedinArticle
10 of the former, cannot be invoked where there is
alegalorphysicalimpossibilityof,oraprohibitioninthespecial law
against, such supplementary
application.Thesituation,however,isdifferentwherealthoughtheoffenseisdefinedinandostensiblypunishedunderaspecial
law, the penalty therefor is actually taken from
theRevisedPenalCodeinitstechnicalnomenclatureand,necessarily,withitsduration,correlationandlegaleffectsunder
the system of penalties native to said Code. When, asin this case,
the law involved speaks of prision
correccional,initstechnicalsenseundertheCode,itwouldconsequentlybebothillogicalandabsurdtopositotherwise.
More on this
later.Forthenonce,weholdthatintheinstantcasetheimposablepenaltyunderRepublicActNo.6425,asamended
by Republic Act No. 7659, is prision
correccional,tobetakenfromthemediumperiodthereofpursuanttoArticle64oftheRevisedPenalCode,therebeingnoattendant
mitigating or aggravating
circumstance.5.Atthisjuncture,aclarificatorydiscussionofthedevelopmentalchangesinthepenaltiesimposedforoffenses
under special laws would be
necessary.Originally,thosespeciallaws,justaswastheconventionalpracticeintheUnitedStatesbutdifferentlyfrom
the penalties provided in our Revised Penal Code
anditsSpanishorigins,providedforonespecificpenaltyorarangeofpenaltieswithdefinitivedurations,suchasimprisonmentforoneyearorforonetofiveyearsbutwithoutdivisionintoperiodsoranytechnicalstatutorycognomen.ThisisthespeciallawcontemplatedinandreferredtoatthetimelawsliketheIndeterminateSentence
Law61 were passed during the American regime.________________61 Act
No. 4103, effective on December 5, 1933.575VOL. 234, JULY 29, 1994
5758/11/15, 5:25 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 234Page
25 of 40
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f1c13ad26266a8888000a0094004f00ee/p/AJX290/?username=GuestPeople
vs. SimonSubsequently,adifferentpatternemergedwherebyaspecial law
would direct that an offense thereunder shall
bepunishedundertheRevisedPenalCodeandinthesamemannerprovidedtherein.Inceptively,forinstance,CommonwealthActNo.30362penalizingnon-paymentofsalaries
and wages with the periodicity prescribed
therein,provided:SEC.4.Failureoftheemployertopayhisemployeeorlaborerasrequired
by section one of this Act, shall prima facie be considered
afraudcommittedbysuchemployeragainsthisemployeeorlaborerbymeansoffalsepretensessimilartothosementionedinarticlethree
hundred and fifteen, paragraph four, sub-paragraph two (a) ofthe
Revised Penal Code and shall be punished in the same manneras
therein
provided.63Thereafter,speciallawswereenactedwheretheoffensesdefined
therein were specifically punished by the penaltiesas technically
named and understood in the Revised
PenalCode.TheseareexemplifiedbyRepublicActNo.1700(Anti-SubversionAct)wherethepenaltiesrangedfromarrestomayortodeath;64PresidentialDecreeNo.1612(Anti-Fencing
Decree) where the penalties run from arrestomayor to prision mayor;
and Presi-dential Decree No.
1866(illegalpossessionandotherprohibitedactsinvolvingfirearms),thepenaltieswhereformayinvolveprisionmayor,
reclusion temporal, reclusion perpetua or
death.AnothervariantworthmentioningisRepublicActNo.6539(Anti-CarnappingActof1972)wherethepenaltyisimprisonment
for not less than 14 years and 8 months
andnotmorethan17yearsand4months,whencommittedwithoutviolenceorintimidationofpersonsorforceuponthings;notlessthan17yearsand4monthsandnotmorethan30years,whencommittedwithviolenceagainstorintimidation
of any person, or force upon________________62 Effective on June 9,
1938.63SeeasimilarformatinP.D.No.330whichpenalizestheillegaltaking
of timber and forest products under Arts. 308, 309 and 310 of
the8/11/15, 5:25 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 234Page
26 of 40
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f1c13ad26266a8888000a0094004f00ee/p/AJX290/?username=GuestRevised
Penal Code by reference.64 In fact, the penalty for officers or
ranking leaders was prision
mayortodeath,justlikethepenaltyfortreasonbyaresidentalienunderArticle
114 of the Revised Penal Code.576576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATEDPeople vs.
Simonthings;andlifeimprisonmenttodeath,whentheowner,driver or
occupant of the carnapped vehicle is
killed.Withrespecttothefirstexample,wherethepenaltiesunderthespeciallawaredifferentfromandarewithoutreferenceorrelationtothoseundertheRevisedPenalCode,
there can be no suppletory effect of the rules for
theapplicationofpenaltiesundersaidCodeorbyotherrelevant statutory
provisions based on or applicable only
tosaidrulesforfeloniesundertheCode.Inthistypeofspecial law, the
legislative intendment is
clear.Thesameexclusionaryrulewouldapplytothelastgiven example,
Republic Act No. 6539. While it is true
thatthepenaltyof14yearsand8monthsto17yearsand4monthsisvirtuallyequivalenttothedurationofthemediumperiodofreclusiontemporal,suchtechnicaltermundertheRevisedPenalCodeisnotgiventothatpenaltyfor
carnapping. Besides, the other penalties for carnappingattended by
the qualifying circumstances stated in the
lawdonotcorrespondtothoseintheCode.TherulesonpenaltiesintheCode,therefore,cannotsuppletorilyapplytoRepublicActNo.6539andspeciallawsofthesameformulation.Ontheotherhand,therulesfortheapplicationofpenaltiesandthecorrelativeeffectsthereofundertheRevised
Penal Code, as well as other statutory enactmentsfounded upon and
applicable to such provisions of the
Code,havesuppletoryeffecttothepenaltiesundertheformerRepublicActNo.1700andthosenowprovidedunderPresidentialDecreesNos.1612and1866.Whilethesearespeciallaws,thefactthatthepenaltiesforoffensesthereunderarethoseprovidedforintheRevisedPenalCode
lucidly reveals the statutory intent to give the related8/11/15,
5:25 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 234Page 27 of 40
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f1c13ad26266a8888000a0094004f00ee/p/AJX290/?username=GuestprovisionsonpenaltiesforfeloniesundertheCodethecorrespondingapplicationtosaidspeciallaws,intheabsenceofanyexpressorimplicitproscriptioninthesespeciallaws.ToholdotherwisewouldbetosanctionanindefensiblejudicialtruncationofanintegratedsystemofpenaltiesundertheCodeanditsalliedlegislation,whichcould
never have been the intendment of Congress.In People vs.
Macatanda,65 a prosecution under a speciallaw________________65
G.R. No. 51368, November 6, 1981, 109 SCRA 35.577VOL. 234, JULY 29,
1994 577People vs. Simon(Presidential Decree No. 533, otherwise
known as the
Anti-CattleRustlingLawof1974),itwascontendedbytheprosecutionthatArticle64,paragraph5,oftheRevisedPenalCodeshouldnotapplytosaidspeciallaw.Wesaidtherein
thatWedonotagreewiththeSolicitorGeneralthatP.D.533isaspecial law
entirely distinct from and unrelated to the Revised PenalCode. From
the nature of the penalty imposed
whichisintermsoftheclassificationanddurationofpenaltiesasprescribedintheRevisedPenalCode,whichisnotforpenaltiesasareordinarilyimposedinspeciallaws,theintentseemsclearthatP.D.533shallbedeemedasanamendmentoftheRevisedPenalCode,withrespect
to the offense of theft of large cattle (Art. 310) or
otherwisetobesubjecttoapplicableprovisionsthereofsuchasArticle104oftheRevisedPenalCodexxx.Article64ofthesameCodeshould,likewise,
be applicable, x x x. (Italics
supplied.)MoreparticularlywithregardtothesuppletoryeffectoftherulesonpenaltiesintheRevisedPenalCodetoRepublicActNo.6425,inthiscaseinvolvingArticle63(2)of
the Code, we have this more recent pronouncement:x x x. Pointing
out that as provided in Article 10 the provisions of8/11/15, 5:25
PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 234Page 28 of 40
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f1c13ad26266a8888000a0094004f00ee/p/AJX290/?username=GuesttheRevisedPenalCodeshallbesupplementarytospeciallaws,thisCourtheldthatwherethespeciallawexpresslygrantstothecourtdiscretioninapplyingthepenaltyprescribedfortheoffense,there
is no roomfor the application of the provisions of the Code. x
xxThe Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended by P.D. No.
1623,containsnoexplicitgrantofdiscretiontotheCourtintheapplicationofthepenaltyprescribedbythelaw.Insuchcase,thecourtmustbeguidedbytherulesprescribedbytheRevisedPenalCodeconcerningtheapplicationofpenaltieswhichdistillthedeeplegalthoughtandcenturiesofexperienceintheadministrationofcriminal
laws. (Emphasis ours.)66________________66 People vs. Tsang Hin
Wai, et al., G.R. No. 66389, September 8,
1986,144SCRA22.InhissponsorshipspeechofSenateBillNo.891asChairmanoftheSpecialCommitteeontheDeathPenalty,SenatorArturoM.TolentinomadethisenlighteningexplanationasreportedintherecordsoftheSenateandwhichispertinenttoourpresentdiscussion:
x x x Article 190, referring to prohibited drugs, actually
wasrepealed by the enactment of a special law referring to drugs.
But sincewe were only amending the Revised Penal Code in this
proposed bill or578578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDPeople vs.
SimonUndertheaforestatedconsiderations,inthecaseoftheDangerous
Drugs Act as now amended by Republic Act
No.7659bytheincorporationandprescriptionthereinofthetechnicalpenaltiesdefinedinandconstitutingintegralpartsofthethreescalesofpenaltiesintheCode,67withmuchmorereasonshouldtheprovisionsofsaidCodeontheappreciationandeffectsofallattendantmodifyingcircumstancesapplyinfixingthepenalty.Likewise,thedifferentkindsorclassificationsofpenaltiesandtherulesforgraduatingsuchpenaltiesbydegreesshouldhavesupplementaryeffectonRepublicActNo.6425,exceptifthey
would result in absurdities as will now be explained.While not
squarely in issue in this case, but because this8/11/15, 5:25 PM
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 234Page 29 of 40
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f1c13ad26266a8888000a0094004f00ee/p/AJX290/?username=Guestaspect
is involved in the discussion on the role of
modifyingcircumstances,wehaveperforcetolaydownthecaveatthatmitigatingcircumstancesshouldbeconsideredandapplied
only if they affect theperiods and the degrees of thepenalties
within rational
limits.Prefatorily,whatordinarilyareinvolvedinthegraduationandconsequentlydeterminethedegreeofthepenalty,inaccordancewiththerulesinArticle61oftheCodeasappliedtothescaleofpenaltiesinArticle71,arethestageofexecutionofthecrimeandthenatureoftheparticipationoftheaccused.However,underparagraph5ofArticle64,whentherearetwoormoreordinarymitigatingcircumstancesandnoaggravatingcircumstance,thepenaltyshallbereducedbyonedegree.Also,thepresenceofprivilegedmitigatingcircumstances,as
provided in Articles 67 and 68, can reduce the penalty
byoneortwodegrees,orevenmore.TheseprovisionsofArticles64(5),67and68shouldnotapplyintotointhedeterminationoftheproperpenaltyundertheaforestatedsecond
paragraph of Section 20 of Republic Act No. 6425,
toavoidanomalousresultswhichcouldnothavebeencontemplated by the
legislature.________________draft,wereincorporatedArticle190inanamendedform.xxxItreincorporates
and amends Article 190 on the importation,
manufacture,sale,administrationuponanother,ordistributionofprohibiteddrugs,plantingorcultivationofanyplant,whichisasourceofprohibiteddrugs,maintenanceofaden,diveorsimilarplace,asdefinedintheDangerous
Drugs Law (9th CRP, 1st Regular Session, Vol. 1, No. 71, 12).67 See
Articles 25, 70 and 71, Revised Penal Code.579VOL. 234, JULY 29,
1994 579People vs. SimonThus, paragraph 5 of Article 61 provides
that when the lawprescribes a penalty in some manner not specially
providedforinthefourprecedingparagraphsthereof,thecourtsshallproceedbyanalogytherewith.Hence,whenthe8/11/15,
5:25 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 234Page 30 of 40
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f1c13ad26266a8888000a0094004f00ee/p/AJX290/?username=Guestpenaltyprescribedforthecrimeconsistsofoneortwopenaltiestobeimposedintheirfullextent,thepenaltynextlowerindegreeshalllikewiseconsistofasmanypenalties
which follow the former in the scale in Article
71.Ifthisruleweretobeapplied,andsincethecomplexpenaltyinthiscaseconsistsofthreediscretepenaltiesintheir
full extent, that is, prision correccional, prision
mayorandreclu-siontemporal,thenonedegreelowerwouldbearrestomenor,destierroandarrestomayor.Therecould,however,benofurtherreductionbystilloneortwodegrees,whichmusteachlikewiseconsistofthreepenalties,sinceonlythepenaltiesoffineandpubliccensure
remain in the
scale.TheCourtrules,therefore,thatwhilemodifyingcircumstances may
be appreciated to determine the
periodsofthecorrespondingpenalties,orevenreducethepenaltyby
degrees,innocaseshouldsuchgraduationofpenaltiesreduce the imposable
penalty beyond or lower than prisioncorreccional. It is for this
reason that the three
componentpenaltiesinthesecondparagraphofSection20shalleachbeconsideredasanindependentprincipalpenalty,andthatthelowestpenaltyshouldinanyeventbeprisioncorreccionalinordernottodepreciatetheseriousnessofdrugoffenses.Interpretatiofiendaestutresmagisvaleatquampereat.Suchinterpretationistobeadoptedsothatthelawmaycontinuetohaveefficacyratherthanfail.Aperfect
judicial solution cannot be forged from an
imperfectlaw,whichimpasseshouldnowbetheconcernofandisaccordingly
addressed to
Congress.6.ThefinalqueryiswhetherornottheIndeterminateSentenceLawisapplicabletothecasenowbeforeus.Apparently
it does, since drug offenses are not included innor has appellant
committed any act which would put
himwithintheexceptionstosaidlawandthepenaltytobeimposeddoesnotinvolvereclusionperpetuaordeath,provided,
of course, that the penalty as ultimately
resolvedwillexceedoneyearofimprisonment.68Themoreimportant aspect,
however, is how the indeterminate sen-_______________68 Section 2,
Act No. 4103, as amended.8/11/15, 5:25 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATED VOLUME 234Page 31 of 40
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f1c13ad26266a8888000a0094004f00ee/p/AJX290/?username=Guest580580
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDPeople vs. Simontence shall be
ascertained.ItistruethatSection1ofsaidlaw,afterprovidingforindeterminatesentenceforanoffenseundertheRevisedPenalCode,statesthatiftheoffenseispunishedbyanyotherlaw,thecourtshallsentencetheaccusedtoanindeterminate
sentence, the maximum term of which
shallnotexceedthemaximumfixedbysaidlawandtheminimumshallnotbelessthantheminimumtermprescribedbythesame.Weholdthatthisquotedportionofthesectionindubitablyreferstoanoffenseunderaspeciallawwhereinthepenaltyimposedwasnottakenfrom
and is without reference to the Revised Penal Code, asdiscussed in
the preceding illustrations, such that it may besaid that the
offense is punished under that
law.Therecanbenosensibledebatethattheaforequotedruleonindeterminatesentenceforoffensesunderspeciallawswasnecessarybecauseofthenatureoftheformertypeofpenaltiesundersaidlawswhichwerenotincludedor
contemplated in the scale of penalties in Article 71 of theCode,
hence there could be no minimum within the rangeof the penalty next
lower to that prescribed by the Code
fortheoffense,asistheruleforfeloniestherein.Intheillustrativeexamplesofpenaltiesinspeciallawshereinbeforeprovided,thisruleapplied,andwouldstillapply,onlytothefirstandlastexamples.Furthermore,consideringthevintageofActNo.4103asearliernoted,this
holding is but an application and is justified under therule of
contemporanea
expositio.69Werepeat,RepublicActNo.6425,asnowamendedbyRepublicActNo.7659,hasunqualifiedlyadoptedthepenaltiesundertheRevisedPenalCodeintheirtechnicalterms,hencewiththeirtechnicalsignificationandeffects.Infact,forpurposesofdeterminingthemaximumofsaidsentence,wehaveappliedtheprovisionsoftheamendedSection20ofsaidlawtoarriveatprisioncorreccionalandArticle64oftheCodetoimposethesameinthemedium8/11/15,
5:25 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 234Page 32 of 40
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f1c13ad26266a8888000a0094004f00ee/p/AJX290/?username=Guestperiod.
Such offense, although provided for in a special law,is now in
effect punished by and under the________________69 Contemporaneous
exposition, or construction; a construction
drawnfromthetimewhen,andthecircumstancesunderwhich,thesubject-mattertobeconstrued,suchasacustomorstatute,originated(BlacksLaw
Dictionary, 4th ed., 390).581VOL. 234, JULY 29, 1994 581People vs.
SimonRevisedPenalCode.Correlatively,todeterminetheminimum,wemustapplythefirstpartoftheaforesaidSection
1 which directs that in imposing a prison
sentenceforanoffensepunishedbytheRevisedPenalCode,oritsamendments,thecourtshallsentencetheaccusedtoanindeterminatesentencethemaximumtermofwhichshallbethatwhich,inviewoftheattendingcircumstances,could
be properly imposed under the rules of said Code,
andtheminimumwhichshallbewithintherangeofthepenaltynextlowertothatprescribedbytheCodefortheoffense.
(Italics ours.)A divergent pedantic application would not only be
out ofcontext but also an admission of the hornbook maxim thatqui
haeret in litera haeret in cortice. Fortunately, this Courthas
never gone only skin-deep in its construction of Act No.4103 by a
mere literal appreciation of its provisions.
Thus,withregardtothephraseinSection2thereofexceptingfromitscoveragepersonsconvictedofoffensespunishedwith
death penalty or life imprisonment, we have held thatwhat is
considered is the penalty actually imposed and
notthepenaltyimposableunderthelaw,70andthatreclusionperpetuaislikewiseembracedthereinalthoughwhatthelaw
states is life
imprisonment.Whatirresistiblyemergesfromtheprecedingdisquisition,
therefore, is that under the concurrence of
theprinciplesofliteralinterpretation,whichhavebeenrationalizedbycomparativedecisionsofthisCourt;of8/11/15,
5:25 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 234Page 33 of 40
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f1c13ad26266a8888000a0094004f00ee/p/AJX290/?username=Guesthistoricalinterpretation,asexplicatedbytheantecedentsof
the law and related contemporaneous legislation; and
ofstructuralinterpretation,consideringtheinterrelationofthe
penalties in the Code as supplemented by Act No.
4103inanintegratedschemeofpenalties,itfollowsthattheminimumoftheindeterminatesentenceinthiscaseshallbe
the penalty next lower to that prescribed for the
offense.Therebyweshallhaveinterpretedtheseemingambiguityin Section
1 of Act No. 4103 in such a way as to harmonizelaws with laws,
which is the best mode of interpretation.71________________70
People vs. Roque, et al., 90 Phil.
142(1951);Peoplevs.Dimalanta,92Phil.239(1952);Peoplevs.Moises,etal.,
G.R.L-32495,August13,1975, 66 SCRA
151.71Interpretareetconcordarelegeslegibus,estoptimusinterpretandimodus
(Blacks Law Dictionary, 4th ed., 953).582582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATEDPeople vs.
SimonTheIndeterminateSentenceLawisalegalandsocialmeasure of
compassion, and should be liberally
interpretedinfavoroftheaccused.72Theminimumsentenceismerelyaperiodatwhich,andnotbefore,asamatterofgrace
and not of right, the prisoner may merely be
allowedtoservethebalanceofhissentenceoutsideofhisconfinement.73Itdoesnotconstitutethetotalityofthepenalty
since thereafter he still has to continue serving therest of his
sentence under set conditions. That minimum isonly the period when
the convicts eligibility for parole maybe considered. In fact, his
release on parole may readily
bedeniedifheisfoundunworthythereof,orhisreincarceration may be
ordered on legal grounds, even if hehas served the minimum
sentence.Itisthusbothamusingandbemusingif,inthecaseatbar,appellantshouldbebegrudgedthebenefitofaminimumsentencewithintherangeofarrestomayor,thepenaltynextlowertoprisioncorreccionalwhichisthe8/11/15,
5:25 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 234Page 34 of 40
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f1c13ad26266a8888000a0094004f00ee/p/AJX290/?username=GuestmaximumrangewehavefixedthroughtheapplicationofArticles61and71oftheRevisedPenalCode.For,withfealty
to the law, the court may set the minimum sentenceat 6 months of
arresto mayor, instead of 6 months and 1 dayof prision
correccional. The difference, which could
therebyeveninvolveonlyoneday,ishardlyworththecreationofan overrated
tempest in the judicial
teapot.ACCORDINGLY,underalltheforegoingpremises,thejudgment of
conviction rendered by the court a quo
againstaccused-appellantMartinSimonySungaisAFFIRMED,butwiththeMODIFICATIONthatheshouldbe,asheherebyis,sentencedtoserveanindeterminatepenaltyofsix
(6) months of arresto mayor, as the minimum, to four
(4)yearsandtwo(2)monthsofprisioncorreccional,asthemaximum
thereof.SO ORDERED. Narvasa (C.J.), Cruz, Padilla, Bidin, Romero,
Melo,Puno, Vitug, Kapunan and Mendoza, JJ., concur. Feliciano, J.,
I join Davide, Jr., J. in his concurringand dissenting
opinion.________________72 People vs. Nang Kay, 88 Phil. 515
(1951).73 24 C.J.S., Indeterminate Sentence, Sec. 1993,
1217-1218.583VOL. 234, JULY 29, 1994 583People vs.
SimonDavide,Jr.,J.,PleaseseeConcurring/Dissentingopinion.
Bellosillo, J., On leave. Quiason, J., I join Justice Davide in his
dissentingopinion.CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION8/11/15, 5:25 PM
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 234Page 35 of 40
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f1c13ad26266a8888000a0094004f00ee/p/AJX290/?username=GuestDAVIDE,
JR.,J.:Iamstillunabletoagreewiththeviewthat(a)inappropriatecaseswherethepenaltytobeimposedwouldbe
prision correccional pursuant to the second paragraph
ofSection20ofR.A.No.6425,asamendedbySection17ofR.A.No.7659,thesentencetobemetedout,applyingtheIndeterminateSentenceLaw(ActNo.4103,asamended),shouldbethatwhoseminimumiswithintherangeofthepenalty
next lower, i.e., arresto mayor; and (b) the
presenceoftwoormoremitigatingcircumstancesnotoffsetbyanymitigatingcircumstancesorofaprivilegedmitigatingcircumstanceshallnotreducethepenaltybyoneortwodegreesifthepenaltytobeimposed,takingintoaccountthequantityofthedangerousdrugsinvolved,wouldbeprision
correccional.I.ThefirstviewisbasedonthepropositionthatsinceR.A.No.
7659 had unqualifiedly adopted the penalties under
theRevisedPenalCodeintheirtechnicalterms,hencealsotheirtechnicalsignificationandeffects,thenwhatshouldgovernisthefirstpartofSection1oftheIndeterminateSentence
Law which directs
that:inimposingaprisonsentenceforanoffensepunishedbytheRevisedPenalCode,oritsamendments,thecourtshallsentencetheaccusedtoanindeterminatesentencethemaximumtermofwhichshallbethatwhich,inviewoftheattendingcircumstances,could
be properly imposed under the rules of the said Code, and
theminimum which shall be within the range of the penalty next
lowerto that prescribed by the Code for the
offense.Elsewisestated,bytheadoptionofthepenaltiesprovidedforintheRevisedPenalCodefortheoffensespenalizedundertheDangerousDrugsAct(R.A.No.6425),asamended,
the latter584584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDPeople vs.
Simon8/11/15, 5:25 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME
234Page 36 of 40
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f1c13ad26266a8888000a0094004f00ee/p/AJX290/?username=GuestoffenseswouldnowbeconsideredaspunishedundertheRevisedPenalCodeforpurposesoftheIndeterminateSentence
Law.Section1oftheIndeterminateSentenceLaw(ActNo.4103, as amended by
Act No. 4225 and R.A. No. 4203) alsoprovides that:if the offense is
punished by any other law, the court shall
sentencetheaccusedtoanindeterminatesentence,themaximumtermofwhichshallnotexceedthemaximumfixedbysaidlawandtheminimumshallnotbelessthantheminimumprescribedbythesame.
(Emphasis
supplied).Thereare,therefore,twocategoriesofoffenseswhichshouldbetakenintoaccountintheapplicationoftheIndeterminateSentenceLaw:(1)offensespunishedbytheRevisedPenalCode,and(2)offensespunishedbyotherlaws
(or special laws). The offenses punished by the
RevisedPenalCodearethosedefinedandpenalizedinBookIIthereof,whichisthusappropriatelytitledCRIMESANDPENALTIES.Tosimplifyfurther,acrimeisdeemedpunished
under the Revised Penal Code if it is defined by
it,andnoneother,asacrimeandispunishedbyapenaltywhichisincludedintheclassificationofPenaltiesinChapter
II, Title III of Book I
thereof.Ontheotherhand,anoffenseisconsideredpunishedunder any other
law (or special law) if it is not defined andpenalized by the
Revised Penal Code but by such other
law.ItisthusclearthatanoffenseispunishedbytheRevisedPenalCodeifbothitsdefinitionandthepenaltythereforarefoundinthesaidCode,anditisdeemedpunishedbyaspeciallawifitsdefinitionandthepenaltythereforarefoundinthespeciallaw.ThatthelatterimportsorborrowsfromtheRevisedPenalCodeitsnomenclature
of penalties does not make an offense in
thespeciallawpunishedbyorpunishableundertheRevisedPenalCode.Thereasonisquitesimple.Itisstillthespeciallawthatdefinestheoffenseandimposesapenaltytherefor,althoughitadoptstheCodesnomenclatureofpenalties.Inshort,themereusebyaspeciallawofapenaltyfoundintheRevisedPenalCodecanbynomeansmakeanoffensethereunderanoffensepunishedorpunishable
by the Revised Penal Code.8/11/15, 5:25 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATED VOLUME 234Page 37 of 40
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f1c13ad26266a8888000a0094004f00ee/p/AJX290/?username=GuestThus,
I cannot subscribe to the view that since R.A.
No.7659hadadoptedthepenaltiesprescribedbytheRevisedPenal Code in
drug cases, offenses related to drugs
shouldnowbeconsideredaspunishedundertheRevisedPenalCode. If that
were so, then585VOL. 234, JULY 29, 1994 585People vs. Simonwe are
also bound, ineluctably, to declare that such
offensesaremalainseandtoapplytheArticlesoftheRevisedPenal Code
regarding the stages of a felony (Article 6),
thenatureofparticipation(Article16),accessorypenalties(Articles40-45),applicationofpenaltiestoprincipals,accomplices,andaccessories(Article46etseq.),complexcrimes
(Article 48), and graduation of penalties (Article
61),amongothers.Wecannotdootherwisewithoutbeingdrawntoaninconsistentposturewhichisextremelyhardto
justify.IrespectfullysubmitthenthattheadoptionbytheDangerous Drugs
Act of the penalties in the Revised PenalCode does not make an
offense under the Dangerous
DrugsActanoffensepunishedbytheRevisedPenalCode.Consequently,wheretheproperpenaltytobeimposedunderSection20oftheDangerousDrugsActisprisioncorreccional,then,applyingtheIndeterminateSentenceLaw,theindeterminatesentencetobemetedontheaccused
should be that whose minimum should not be
lessthantheminimumprescribedbythespeciallaw(theDangerousDrugsAct),i.e.,notlowerthansix(6)monthsand
one (1) day of prision correccional.II.The majority opinion holds
the view that while the penaltyprovided for in Section 20 of the
Dangerous Drugs Act is
acomplexonecomposedofthreedistinctpenalties,viz.,prision
correccional, prision mayor, and reclusion temporal,and that
pursuant to Article 77 of the Revised Penal
Code,eachshouldformaperiod,withthelightestofthembeing8/11/15, 5:25
PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 234Page 38 of 40
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f1c13ad26266a8888000a0094004f00ee/p/AJX290/?username=Guestthe
minimum, the next as the medium, and the most
severeasthemaximum,yet,consideringthatunderthesaidsecondparagraphofSection20thepenaltydependsonthequantityofthedrugsubjectofthecriminaltransaction,then
by way of exception to Article 77 of the Revised
PenalCodeandtosubservethepurposeofSection20,asamended,eachoftheaforesaidcomponentpenaltiesshallbeconsideredasaprincipalpenaltydependingonthequantityofthedruginvolved.Thereafter,applyingthemodifyingcircumstancespursuanttoArticle64oftheRevisedPenalCode,theproperperiodofthecomponentpenalty
shall then be fixed. To illustrate, if by the quantityof the drugs
involved (e.g., marijuana below 250 grams) theproper principal
penalty should be prision586586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATEDPeople vs.
Simoncorreccional,butthereisonemitigatingandnoaggravatingcircumstance,thenthepenaltytobeimposedshouldbeprisioncorreccionalinitsminimumperiod.Yet,the
majority opinion puts a limit to such a rule. It
declares:TheCourtrules,therefore,thatwhilemodifyingcircumstancesmaybeappreciatedtodeterminetheperiodsofthecorrespondingpenalties,
or even reduce the penalty by degrees, in no case
shouldsuchgraduationofpenaltiesreducetheimposablepenaltybeyondor
lower thanprision correccional. It is for this reason that the
threecomponentpenaltiesinthesecondparagraphofSection20shalleachbeconsideredasanindependentprincipalpenalty,andthatthelowestpenaltyshouldinanyeventbeprisioncorreccionalinorder
not to depreciate the sriousness of drug
offenses.Simplyput,thisrulewouldallowthereductionfromreclusion
temporalif it is the penalty to be imposed on thebasis of the
quantity of the drugs involvedby two
degrees,ortoprisioncorreccional,iftherearetwoormoremitigating
circumstances and no aggravating circumstanceis present (paragraph
5, Article 64, Revised Penal Code)
orifthereisaprivilegedmitigatingcircumstanceof,say,8/11/15, 5:25 PM
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 234Page 39 of 40
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f1c13ad26266a8888000a0094004f00ee/p/AJX290/?username=Guestminority(Article68,RevisedPenalCode),orundercircumstancescoveredbyArticle69oftheRevisedPenalCode.Yet,iftheproperpenaltytobeimposedisprisionmayor,regardlessofthefactthatareductionbytwodegreesisproper,itshouldonlybereducedbyonedegreebecause
the rule does not allow a reduction beyond prisioncorreccional.
Finally, if the proper penalty to be imposed isprision
correccional, no reduction at all would be allowed. Ifind the
justification for the rule to be arbitrary and
unfair.Itisarbitrarybecausewithinthesamesecondparagraphinvolvingthesamerangeofpenalty,webothallowanddisallowtheapplicationofArticle64(5),Article68,andArticle69oftheRevisedPenalCode.Thereasonforthedisallowance,viz.,inordernottodepreciatetheseriousnessofdrugoffenses,isunconvincingbecauseSection
20 of the Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended by R.A.No. 7659, has in
fact depreciated the serious-ness of
drugoffensesbyprovidingquantityasbasisforthedeterminationoftheproperpenaltyandlimitingfineonlytocasespunishablebyreclusionperpetuatodeath.Itisunfair
because an accused who is found guilty of possessingMORE dangerous
drugssay 500 to587VOL. 234, JULY 29, 1994 587People vs.
Simon749gramsofmarijuana,inwhichcasethepenaltytobeimposedwouldbereclusiontemporalmayonlybesentencedtosix(6)monthsandone(1)dayofprisioncorreccionalminimumbecauseofprivilegedmitigatingcircum-stances.Yet,anaccusedwhoisfoundguiltyofpossessionofonlyone(1)gramofmarijuanainwhichcasethepenaltytobeimposedisprisioncorreccionalwouldnotbeentitledtoareductionthereofevenifhehasthesamenumberofprivilegedmitigatingcircumstances
as the former
has.Also,iftheprivilegedmitigatingcircumstancehappensto be the
minority of the accused, then he is entitled to
thereductionofthepenaltyasamatterofrightpursuanttoArticle 68 of the
Revised Penal Code, which reads:8/11/15, 5:25 PM SUPREME COURT
REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 234Page 40 of 40
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f1c13ad26266a8888000a0094004f00ee/p/AJX290/?username=Guest1.2.ART.68.Penaltytobeimposeduponapersonundereighteenyearsof
age.When the offender is a minor under eighteen years and hiscase
is one coming under the provisions of the paragraph next to thelast
of Article 80 of this Code, the following rules shall be
observed:Upon a person under fifteen but over nine years of age,
whois not exempted from liability by reason of the court
havingdeclaredthatheactedwithdiscernment,adiscretionarypenaltyshallbeimposed,butalwayslowerbytwodegreesat
least than that prescribed by law for the crime which
hecommitted.Upon a person over fifteen and under eighteen years of
agethe penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall
beimposed, but always in the proper period.I do not think that as
to the second paragraph of Section
20oftheDangerousDrugsAct,asamendedbySection17ofR.A.No.7659,wecanbeatlibertytoapplytheRevisedPenal
Code in one aspect and not to apply it in another.Appealed judgment
affirmed with
modification.Note.Inprosecutionsforillegalsaleofmarijuanawhatismaterialistheproofthatthesellingtransactiontranspiredcoupledwiththepresentationincourtofthecorpusdelictiasevidence(Peoplevs.Mariano,191SCRA136).o0o588
Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.