People vs. Simon 234 SCRA 555, G.R. No.
93028 July Simon then seek the reversal of the judgement
29, 1994
ISSUE:
FACTS: Was the conviction of Simon correct?
Accused Martin Simon was charged with a violation of
RULING:
Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425 or the
To sustain a conviction for selling prohibited drugs, the sale
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. He sold tea bags of
must be clearly and unmistakably established. To sell
marijuana to a Narcotics Command (NARCOM) poseur-
means to give, whether for money or any other material
buyer. The confiscated 4 tea bags, weighing a total of 3.8
consideration. It must, therefore, be established beyond
grams, when subjected to laboratory examination, were
doubt that appellant actually sold and delivered two tea
found positive for marijuana.
bags of marijuana dried leaves to Sgt. Lopez, who acted as
Simon denied the accusation against him, claiming that on the poseur-buyer, in exchange for two twenty-peso bills.
the day of question, he was picked up by the police at their
After careful review, the Court held that there were 2 tea
house while watching TV. He was told that he was a pusher
bags of marijuana that was sold and there were 2 other tea
so he attempted to alight from the jeep but he was
bags of marijuana confiscated. Thus, Simon should be
handcuffed instead. When they finally reached the camp, he
charged of selling for the 2 tea bags of marijuana only.
was ordered to sign some papers and, when he refused, he
was boxed in the stomach eight or nine times by Sgt. However, there is an overlapping error in the provisions on
Pejoro. He was then compelled to affix his signature and the penalty of reclusion perpetua by reason of its dual
fingerprints on the documents presented to him. He denied imposition, that is, as the maximum of the penalty where
knowledge of the marked money or the 4 teabags of dried the marijuana is less than 750 grams, and also as the
marijuana leaves, and insisted that the marked money minimum of the penalty where the marijuana involved is
came from the pocket of Pejoro. Moreover, the reason why 750 grams or more. The same error has been committed
he vomited blood was because of the blows he suffered at with respect to the other prohibited and regulated drugs
the hands of Pejoro. provided in said Section 20. To harmonize such conflicting
provisions in order to give effect to the whole law, the court
Dr. Evelyn Gomez-Aguas, a resident physician of Romana
hereby hold that the penalty to be imposed where the
Pangan District Hospital, declared that she treated appellant
quantity of the drugs involved is less than the quantities
for three days due to abdominal pain, but her examination
stated in the first paragraph shall range from prision
revealed that the cause for this ailment was appellant’s
correccional to reclusion temporal, and not reclusion
peptic ulcer. She did not see any sign of slight or serious
perpetua. This is also concordant with the fundamental rule
external injury, abrasion or contusion on his body.
in criminal law that all doubts should be construed in a
Simon was sentenced to suffer the penalty of life manner favorable to the accused.
imprisonment, to pay a fine of twenty thousand pesos and
to pay the costs.
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.
People vs. Siton G.R. No. 169364, September 18, 2009
