Title
People vs. Empleo
Case
G.R. No. 148547
Decision Date
Sep 27, 2006
Police seized shabu and marijuana from Dante Mah; Supreme Court ruled possession of each constitutes separate offenses under RA 6425, requiring two Informations.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 148547)

Factual Background

On October 6, 1999, a search warrant was executed at the LS Lodge, leading to the discovery of various illegal substances in the possession of the private respondent. The items seized included thirty-two small plastic sachets and six large plastic sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu, and additional marijuana leaves. Following this search, the authorities charged the private respondent with two separate Informations for violations under Republic Act No. 6425, concerning marijuana and shabu, prompting subsequent legal challenges based on the assertion of improper splitting of offenses.

Charges and Prosecution's Actions

The prosecution filed two distinct Informations against the private respondent: one for the possession of shabu (Criminal Case No. 9272) and another for marijuana (Criminal Case No. 9279). During the arraignment on October 28, 1999, the private respondent entered a plea of not guilty for both charges. Subsequently, the respondent filed a motion to dismiss the second charge on the grounds that both illegal possessions constituted a single act arising from one occasion, effectively splitting a single cause of action into two charges.

Trial Court Proceedings

In response to the motion, the trial court, presided over by Judge Empleo, determined through a resolution dated April 3, 2000, to consolidate the charges into a single Information due to the nature of the offense occurring at one time and place. The court noted the potential issue of splitting a single criminal act into separate cases and directed the prosecution to revise the charges accordingly.

Court of Appeals Ruling

Upon the petitioner's filing of a certiorari petition against the trial court's resolution, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's order, asserting that only a single violation, that of possession of dangerous drugs, had taken place. The appellate court reasoned that the simultaneous possession of both shabu and marijuana should not count as two separate offenses but rather as one unified act of possession under the Dangerous Drugs Act, which they interpreted as encompassing both types of substances under common culpability.

Supreme Court Determination

The Supreme Court adjudicated the matter and found merit in the petitioner’s stance. It overturned the decisions of the lower courts, emphasizing that the illegal possession of shabu and marijuana constitutes distinct offenses due to the differing legal provisions governing prohibited and regulated drugs, as delineated in RA 6425. The Court underscored the import

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.