Case Digest (G.R. No. 175939)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Chad Manansala y Lagman, G.R. No. 175939, April 03, 2013, the Supreme Court First Division, Bersamin, J., writing for the Court.
The respondent-accused is Chad Manansala y Lagman; the People of the Philippines prosecuted him for illegal sale of marijuana under Republic Act No. 6425 as amended by Republic Act No. 7659. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 74, Olongapo City, rendered a decision dated February 1, 2000 convicting Manansala of illegal possession of marijuana under Section 8 of RA 6425 and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and a fine; the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed with modification on July 26, 2006. The present case is the appeal from the CA decision to the Supreme Court.
On October 18, 1994 the Philippine National Police (PNP) in Olongapo conducted a test-buy operation targeting Manansala as a suspected marijuana dealer. Following that operation, the PNP obtained Search Warrant No. 8-94 from the RTC, Branch 72, Olongapo City, and executed it on October 19, 1994 at Manansala’s residence. The search team, led by SPO4 Felipe P. Bolina and accompanied by the barangay chairman, recovered a wooden box inside a cabinet containing bricks of dried marijuana leaves (reported variously as 750–755 grams and elsewhere as 764.045 grams) and money (including two marked P50 bills used in the test buy). The seized items were inventoried and signed by Manansala, his father, and the barangay captain, and were turned over to PNP custody and later submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory, which issued Technical Report No. D-396-94 finding the specimens positive for marijuana.
An information filed October 20, 1994 alleged that on or about October 19, 1994 Manansala "willfully, unlawfully and knowingly engage in selling, delivering, giving away to another and distributing more or less 750 grams ... of marijuana," i.e., a charge under Section 4 of RA 6425 (sale/distribution). Manansala pleaded not guilty on November 22, 1994. The prosecutor later filed, on January 4, 1995, a motion for the admission of an amended information to charge illegal possession under Section 8 instead of sale under Section 4; the RTC did not act on that motion, but the trial nevertheless proceeded.
At trial, the prosecution presented witnesses and the seized corpus delicti; it did not present the poseur-buyer who allegedly conducted the test-buy. Manansala denied the charge and testified that he was framed, alleging an arrest by unidentified military men and physical maltreatment; he could identify only SPO4 Bolina. The RTC nonetheless convicted Manansala for illegal possession (Section 8) on the theory that possession was established by the seized marijuana and that possession is an element or necessarily included in the sale charged; the RTC imposed reclusion perpetua (as adjusted by RA 7659) and a P750,000 fine.
On appeal the CA considered three issues (validity of the warrant, the RTC's conversion of the charge from sale to possession, and alleged misappreciation of evidence) and, on July 26, 2006, dismissed...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did convicting Chad Manansala for illegal possession under Section 8 when the information charged illegal sale under Section 4 violate his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation (Art. III, Sec. 14(2), 1987 Constitution)?
- If there was a variance between the offense charged (Section 4) and the offense proved (Section 8), does the doctrine that an offense necessarily includes a lesser offense apply to permit conviction for possession; specifically, does illegal sale under Section 4 necessarily include illegal possess...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)