PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. MARTIN SIMON y SUNGA.
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 93028
- Promulgated: 1994-07-29
- Ponente: Regalado, J.
Doctrine
To sustain a conviction for sale of prohibited drugs the sale must be clearly and unmistakably established; sale means delivery for money or other material consideration.
Modifying circumstances may adjust periods within a divisible penalty but cannot lower the imposable penalty below prision correccional; each component penalty is an independent principal penalty.
Where a special law's amended provisions are favorable to the accused, courts must apply such retroactive provisions even if the accused has not requested them (retroactivity in favor of the accused).
Facts
Accused-appellant Martin Simon was indicted for selling four tea bags of marijuana to a NARCOM poseur-buyer on or about 22 October 1988 at Barangay Sto. Cristo, Guagua, Pampanga; the tea bags tested positive for marijuana.
The quantity involved totaled only 3.8 grams; conviction was contemplated for sale of only two tea bags.
There was minor discrepancy as to which officer actually seized the marijuana from appellant, but the Court found the marijuana was confiscated from appellant's possession.
Case was heard en banc because of novelty and importance of issues on the effects of R.A. No. 7659 amending R.A. No. 6425.
Issues
Whether the sale of prohibited drugs was established beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the favorable, retroactive provisions of penal law apply to appellant though he did not invoke them.
Whether the imposable penalty under R.A. No. 6425, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, should be taken from the Revised Penal Code and whether the Indeterminate Sentence Law applies.
Whether modifying circumstances may reduce the imposable penalty below prision correccional.
Ruling
Yes. The Court affirmed conviction: the sale must be clearly and unmistakably established and the marijuana was confiscated from appellant, supporting conviction for sale of two tea bags.
The Court held that favorable penal provisions must be applied retroactively when they benefit the accused, regardless of whether the accused invoked them.
The imposable penalty is prision correccional taken from the medium period under Article 64 RPC; the Indeterminate Sentence Law applies and an indeterminate term is proper.
Modifying circumstances may affect periods but cannot reduce the imposable penalty below prision correccional; the lowest component penalty remains prision correccional.
Keywords
G.R. No. 93028, Republic Act No. 6425, Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, marijuana, buy-bust team, marked money, custodial investigation, waiver of right to counsel, Receipt of Property Seized/Confiscated, frame-up, inadmissible in evidence, life imprisonment, fine of twenty thousand pesos, confiscated in favor of the Government, peptic ulcer, appellant, latter, pejoro, marijuana dried leaves