G.R. No. 175319 - People vs. Noque y Gomez

Two separate Informations were filed before the RTC of Manila, subsequently docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 01-189458 and 01-189459.
In Criminal Case No. 01-189458, the accused was charged with violating Section 15, Article III in relation to Section 21 (e), (f), (m), (o), Article 1 of RA 6425 (as amended) for the alleged sale of white crystalline substance known as “shabu” containing methamphetamine hydrochloride.
In Criminal Case No. 01-189459, the charge was for violation of Section 16, Article III in relation to Section 2 (e-2), Article I of RA 6425 (as amended) for the illegal possession of white crystalline substance alleged to be “shabu” without the requisite license or prescription.

A confidential informant provided information to SPO4 Norberto Murillo at Police Station No. 4 of the Western Police District regarding the drug trafficking activities of the appellant at No. 630 San Andres Street, Malate, Manila.
Following the tip-off, SPO4 Murillo directed police officers Christian Balais and Dionisio Borca to conduct surveillance, which confirmed the appellant’s illegal operations.
A buy-bust operation was subsequently implemented:

PO1 Balais acted as the poseur-buyer and was supplied with marked money (10 pieces of 100-peso bills).
The team, along with the informant, positioned themselves outside the appellant’s residence and initiated the operation by calling the appellant into the house.
During the encounter, the appellant, after receiving the money, produced two plastic sachets from a “pranela” bag containing white crystalline granules.
The informant exited as part of the prearranged signal that the sale was completed, prompting the team to enter the premises, search the appellant, collect the buy-bust money, and confiscate the bag and additional items.

One self-sealing bag marked “JNG” containing 679.215 grams of white crystalline granules.
Two heat-sealed plastic sachets pre-marked “JNG-1” and “JNG-2” weighing 2.779 grams and 2.729 grams respectively.

Qualitative examinations yielded positive results for ephedrine, a substance which serves as the precursor for methamphetamine hydrochloride.

On an earlier occasion, a team of policemen had entered his house and arrested another occupant, and after a series of events and releases, he himself was apprehended on the evening of January 30, 2001.
He contended that the police action—utilizing a buy-bust operation—was part of an entrapment, and that he was taken at gunpoint to the station, later presented at a press conference.

The trial court, after a pre-trial and joint trial, found the prosecution’s evidence sufficient, highlighting the direct testimony of police officers who observed the transaction in flagrante delicto.

Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the illegal sale and possession of a dangerous drug.

Did the testimony of the police officers and the physical evidence seized support the allegations in the Informations?
Was the concurrence of elements such as the identification of the parties, the delivery of the drug, and the payment clearly demonstrated?

Whether the discrepancy between the drug’s nomenclature in the Informations—referencing methamphetamine hydrochloride—and the actual substance (ephedrine) seized affects the appellant’s right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against him.

Did this variance violate constitutional principles regarding due process and the accused’s right to be informed of the specific charges?
Is the chemical similarity and precursor relationship between ephedrine and methamphetamine sufficient to sustain the conviction?

Whether the application of Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 120 (on variance between allegation and proof) justifies convicting the appellant for the offense charged which is included in the offense proved.