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.