G.R. No. 175939 - People vs. Masala y Lagman

The case involves the prosecution of Chad Manansala y Lagman for his alleged involvement in the distribution of marijuana.
The criminal complaint originally charged him with illegal sale of prohibited drugs under Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), amended by Republic Act No. 7659.
The record indicates that the alleged criminal act occurred on or about October 19, 1994, in Olongapo City, Philippines.

The information filed on October 20, 1994 alleged that on October 19, 1994, Manansala unlawfully engaged in selling, delivering, giving away, and distributing approximately 750 grams of dried marijuana leaves.
The marijuana was found in a small wooden box inside a cabinet at his residence and was part of the evidence later contested in court.
The information as originally charged under Section 4 was later argued by the prosecution to be more appropriately addressed under Section 8 (illegal possession), given the nature and handling of the evidence.

A test-buy operation conducted on October 18, 1994, by the Philippine National Police (PNP) in Olongapo City led to the issuance of a search warrant (Search Warrant No. 8-94) from RTC, Branch 72.
On October 19, 1994, SPO4 Felipe P. Bolina, along with other elements and accompanied by a Barangay official, executed the search at the accused’s residence.
The search yielded the 750 grams of dried marijuana leaves, along with a small amount of money (P655.00, including two marked P50.00 bills used during the test buy).
All seized articles were inventoried, and Manansala, along with witnesses like his father and the Barangay Captain, signed the respective certification documents.
The seized material was later submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory, which issued a positive laboratory report confirming the presence of marijuana.

Manansala pleaded not guilty, contesting the charge by alleging that he was framed.
His version of events stated that on October 19, 1994, men (allegedly military personnel in civilian attire) unlawfully arrested him without a warrant, beat him, and detained him in various locations.
Despite his defense, he could not identify all his captors during testimony, except for recognizing SPO4 Bolina.

During trial, the prosecution presented evidence of the seized marijuana and relied on the lawful execution of the search warrant.
The RTC convicted Manansala not for the illegal sale as charged but for illegal possession of marijuana under Section 8, ruling that possession is an inherent element of the crime of drug dealing.
The RTC sentenced the accused to reclusion perpetua maximum (imprisonment from 30 years and 1 day to 40 years) and imposed a fine of P750,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment.
The trial record noted that the element of sale was not sufficiently proven due to the lack of a witness posing as a buyer, whereas the corpus delicti for possession was established beyond reasonable doubt.

The evidence was obtained through an invalid warrant.
The conversion of the charged offense (illegal sale under Section 4) to a conviction for illegal possession (Section 8) violated his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.
The trial court incorrectly evaluated evidence that might have been sufficient for acquittal if properly considered.

The Court of Appeals (CA) reviewed these issues and, on July 26, 2006, affirmed the conviction with modification, dismissing the appeal.
The CA held that the crime of illegal possession is necessarily included within the crime of illegal sale and that the variance between the charge and the proven offense did not constitute a constitutional violation.

Whether the change from the offense charged (illegal sale under Section 4) to the conviction (illegal possession under Section 8) violated the accused’s constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.

Whether it was proper for the trial court to convict the accused for illegal possession when the information initially alleged illegal sale, and if the possession element is indeed inherently absorbed in the crime of drug pushing or dealing.

Whether the prosecution’s presentation of evidence, including the seizure of marijuana and laboratory findings, was sufficient to establish the crime of illegal possession beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the absence of the poseur-buyer witness undermined the proof of illegal sale, and if this error could affect the conviction based on possession.