Supreme Court: The Charges
Supreme Court: The Charges
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
DECISION
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
The illicit trade and use of dangerous drugs destroys the moral
fiber of society. It has eroded and disrupted family life, increased
the transmission of sexually related diseases, resulted in
permanent and fatal damage to the physical and mental health,
and wasted dreams, opportunities and hopes for a better future. As
an ardent sentinel of the peoples rights and welfare, this Court
shall not hesitate to dispense justice on people who engage in such
an activity.1 The commitment to this end is exemplified in this
appeal.
The Charges
The appeal stems from two Informations filed before the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, which were subsequently docketed as
Criminal Case Nos. 01-189458 and 01-189459, and raffled to
Branch 35 of said court. The Information in Criminal Case No. 01-
189458 charging appellant Joselito Noque y Gomez with violation
of Section 15, Article III in relation to Section 21 (e), (f), (m), (o),
Article 1 of Republic Act (RA) No. 6425, as amended by Presidential
Decree (PD) No. 1683 and as further amended by RA 7659 reads:
Contrary to law.3
The seized articles were taken to the police station and submitted
to the crime laboratory for examination to determine the chemical
composition of the crystalline substance. Police Inspector (P/Insp.)
and Forensic Chemical Officer Miladenia Tapan examined one self-
sealing transparent plastic bag with markings "JNG" containing
679.215 grams of white crystalline granules; and two heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachets each containing white crystalline
substance, pre-marked "JNG-1" weighing 2.779 grams and "JNG-
2"weighing 2.729 grams. The qualitative examinations yielded
positive results for ephedrine, a regulated drug.
The trial court also held that while the Informations alleged
methamphetamine hydrochloride as the drug seized from the
appellant, the drug actually confiscated which was ephedrine, is a
precursor of methamphetamine, i.e.,methamphetamine is an
element of, and is present in ephedrine. Ephedrine is the raw
material while methamphetamine is its refined product. Both drugs
have the same chemical formula except for the presence of a single
atom of oxygen which when removed by means of chemical
reaction changes ephedrine to methamphetamine. Thus, the trial
court ruled that the appellant can be convicted of the offenses
charged, which are included in the crimes proved. The trial court
further held that under Section 4, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court, a
variance in the offense charged in the complaint or information and
that proved shall result in the conviction for the offense charged
which is included in the offense proved.
In the service of his sentences, the full time during which the
accused had been under preventive imprisonment should be
credited in his favor provided that he had agreed voluntarily in
writing to abide with the same disciplinary rules imposed on
convicted prisoner. Otherwise, he should be credited with four-
fifths (4/5) only of the time he had been under preventive
imprisonment.
Exhibits "B" and "C" are ordered confiscated and forfeited in favor
of the government. Within ten (10) days following the
promulgation of this judgment, the Branch Clerk of this Court, is
ordered to turn over, under proper receipt, the regulated drug
involved in these cases to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
(PDEA) for proper disposal.
SO ORDERED.7
SO ORDERED.9
Our Ruling
The police buy-bust team apprehended the appellant for the sale
of a white crystalline substance then proceeded to search the
premises. They found a large quantity of the same substance inside
the bag that contained the two sachets of the regulated drug sold
to PO1 Balais. Appellant did not offer any explanation why he is in
custody of the said substance. Neither did the appellant present
any authorization to possess the same. "Mere possession of a
regulated drug per se constitutes prima facie evidence of
knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused
absent a satisfactory explanation of such possession the onus
probandi is shifted to the accused, to explain the absence of
knowledge or animus possidendi."12 With the burden of evidence
shifted to the appellant, it was his duty to explain his innocence on
the regulated drug seized from his person. However, as already
mentioned, he did not offer any excuse or explanation regarding
his possession thereof.
The only issue raised by the appellant in this petition is that his
conviction for the sale and possession of shabu, despite the fact
that what was established and proven was the sale and possession
of ephedrine, violated his constitutional right to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusations against him since the charges
in the Informations are for selling and possessing
methamphetamine hydrochloride.
We agree with the findings of the CA and the trial court, as well as
the testimony of the forensic chemical officer, that the drug known
as ephedrine has a central nervous stimulating effect similar to that
of methamphetamine. In fact, ephedrine is an important precursor
used in the clandestine synthesis of methamphetamine, which in
crystallized form is methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The CA correctly ruled that Sections 4 and 5, Rule 120 of the Rules
of Court,14 can be applied by analogy in convicting the appellant of
the offenses charged, which are included in the crimes proved.
Under these provisions, an offense charged is necessarily included
in the offense proved when the essential ingredients of the former
constitute or form part of those constituting the latter. At any rate,
a minor variance between the information and the evidence does
not alter the nature of the offense, nor does it determine or qualify
the crime or penalty, so that even if a discrepancy exists, this
cannot be pleaded as a ground for acquittal. 15 In other words, his
right to be informed of the charges against him has not been
violated because where an accused is charged with a specific crime,
he is duly informed not only of such specific crime but also of lesser
crimes or offenses included therein.16
The Penalties
SO ORDERED.
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
JOSE P. PEREZ
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
CERTIFICATION
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Endnotes:
1
See People v. San Juan, 427 Phil. 236, 247-248 (2002).
2
Records, p. 2.
3
Id. at 3.
4
Id. at 140-153; penned by Judge Ramon P. Makasiar.
5
TSN, October 11, 2002, p. 15.
6
2.729 grams plus 2.779 grams.
7
Records, pp. 152-153.
8
CA rollo, pp. 109-110.
9
Records, p. 17.
10
People v. Lee Hoi Ming, 459 Phil. 187, 193 (2003).
11
People v. Tiu Won Chua, 453 Phil. 177, 186 (2003).
12
People v. Tee, 443 Phil. 521, 551 (2003).
13
People v. Bocalan, 457 Phil. 472, 482 (2003).
14
Sec. 4. Judgment in case of variance between allegation and
proof. When there is a variance between the offense charged in the
complaint or information, and that proved, and the offense
charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved,
the accused shall be convicted of the offense proved which is
included in the offense charged, or of the offense charged which is
included in the offense proved.