Republic of the Philippines payment.

Lopez then scratched his head as a

SUPREME COURT pre-arranged signal to his companions who were stationed around ten to fifteen meters away,
Manila and the team closed in on them. Thereupon, Villaruz, who was the head of the back-up team,
arrested appellant. The latter was then brought by the team to the 3rd Narcotics Regional Unit at
Camp Olivas on board a jeep and he was placed under custodial investigation, with Sgt. Pejoro
EN BANC
as the investigator.4

Pfc. Villaruz corroborated Lopez' testimony, claiming that he saw the deal that transpired
between Lopez and the appellant. He also averred that he was the one who confiscated the
G.R. No. 93028 July 29, 1994 marijuana and took the marked money from appellant.5

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, Sgt. Domingo Pejoro, for his part, declared that although he was part of the buy-bust team, he
vs. was stationed farthest from the rest of the other members, that is, around two hundred meters
MARTIN SIMON y SUNGA, respondent. away from his companions. He did not actually see the sale that transpired between Lopez and
appellant but he saw his teammates accosting appellant after the latter's arrest. He was likewise
the one who conducted the custodial investigation of appellant wherein the latter was apprised of
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. his rights to remain silent, to information and to counsel. Appellant, however, orally waived his
right to counsel.6
Ricardo M.Sampang for accused-appellant.
Pejoro also claimed having prepared Exhibit "G", the "Receipt of Property Seized/Confiscated"
which appellant signed, admitting therein the confiscation of four tea bags of marijuana dried
leaves in his possession. Pejoro likewise informed the court below that, originally, what he
placed on the receipt was that only one marijuana leaf was confiscated in exchange for P20.00.
REGALADO, J.: However, Lopez and Villaruz corrected his entry by telling him to put "two", instead of "one" and
"40", instead of "20". He agreed to the correction since they were the ones who were personally
Herein accused-appellant Martin Simon y Sunga was charged on November 10, 1988 with a and directly involved in the purchase of the marijuana and the arrest of appellant.7
violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act
No. 6425, as amended, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, under an Dr. Pedro S. Calara, a medical officer at Camp Olivas, examined appellant at 5:30 p.m. of the
indictment alleging that on or about October 22, 1988, at Barangay Sto. Cristo, Guagua, day after the latter's apprehension, and the results were practically normal except for his
Pampanga, he sold four tea bags of marijuana to a Narcotics Command (NARCOM) poseur- relatively high blood pressure. The doctor also did not find any trace of physical injury on the
buyer in consideration of the sum of P40.00, which tea bags, when subjected to laboratory person of appellant. The next day, he again examined appellant due to the latter's complaint of
examination, were found positive for marijuana.1 gastro-intestinal pain. In the course of the examination, Dr. Calara discovered that appellant has
a history of peptic ulcer, which causes him to experience abdominal pain and consequently
Eventually arraigned with the assistance of counsel on March 2, 1989, after his rearrest following vomit blood. In the afternoon, appellant came back with the same complaint but, except for the
his escape from Camp Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga where he was temporarily gastro-intestinal pain, his physical condition remained normal.8
detained,2 he pleaded not guilty. He voluntarily waived his right to a pre-trial conference,3 after
which trial on the merits ensued and was duly concluded. As expected, appellant tendered an antipodal version of the attendant facts, claiming that on the
day in question, at around 4:30 p.m., he was watching television with the members of his family
I in their house when three persons, whom he had never met before suddenly arrived. Relying on
the assurance that they would just inquire about something from him at their detachment,
appellant boarded a jeep with them. He was told that they were going to Camp Olivas, but he
The evidence on record shows that a confidential informant, later identified as a NARCOM later noticed that they were taking a different route. While on board, he was told that he was a
operative, informed the police unit at Camp Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga, of the illegal drug pusher so he attempted to alight from the jeep but he was handcuffed instead. When they finally
activities of a certain "Alyas Pusa" at Sto. Cristo, Guagua, Pampanga. Capt. Francisco reached the camp, he was ordered to sign some papers and, when he refused, he was boxed in
Bustamante, Commanding Officer of the 3rd Narcotics Regional Unit in the camp, then formed a the stomach eight or nine times by Sgt. Pejoro. He was then compelled to affix his signature and
buy-bust team composed of Sgt. Buenaventura Lopez, Pfc. Virgilio Villaruz and fingerprints on the documents presented to him. He denied knowledge of the P20.00 or the dried
Sgt. Domingo Pejoro, all members of the same unit. After securing marked money from marijuana leaves, and insisted that the twenty-peso bill came from the pocket of Pejoro.
Bustamante, the team, together with their informant, proceeded to Sto. Cristo after they had Moreover, the reason why he vomited blood was because of the blows he suffered at the hands
coordinated with the police authorities and barangay officers thereof. When they reached the of Pejoro. He admitted having escaped from the NARCOM office but claimed that he did so
place, the confidential informer pointed out appellant to Lopez who consequently approached since he could no longer endure the maltreatment to which he was being subjected. After
appellant and asked him if he had marijuana. Appellant answered in the affirmative and Lopez escaping, he proceeded to the house of his uncle, Bienvenido Sunga, at San Matias, Guagua,
offered to buy two tea bags. Appellant then left and, upon returning shortly thereafter, handed to reaching the place at around 6:30 or 7:30 p.m. There, he consulted a quack doctor and, later, he
Lopez two marijuana tea bags and Lopez gave him the marked money amounting to P40.00 as

1
was accompanied by his sister to the Romana Pangan District Hospital at Floridablanca, the fact that they are presumed to have regularly performed their official duty.21 Such lack of
Pampanga where he was confined for three days.9 dubious motive coupled with the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, as
well as the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, should prevail over the self-
serving and uncorroborated claim of appellant of having been framed,22 erected as it is upon the
Appellant's brother, Norberto Simon, testified to the fact that appellant was hospitalized at
mere shifting sands of an alibi. To top it all, appellant was caught
Floridablanca, Pampanga after undergoing abdominal pain and vomiting of blood. He likewise
red-handed delivering prohibited drugs, and while there was a delimited chance for him to
confirmed that appellant had been suffering from peptic ulcer even before the latter's
controvert the charge, he does not appear to have plausibly done so.
arrest.10 Also, Dr. Evelyn Gomez-Aguas, a resident physician of Romana Pangan District
Hospital, declared that she treated appellant for three days due to abdominal pain, but her
examination revealed that the cause for this ailment was appellant's peptic ulcer. She did not When the drug seized was submitted to the Crime Laboratory Service of the then Philippine
see any sign of slight or serious external injury, abrasion or contusion on his body.11 Constabulary-Integrated National Police (PC-INP) at Camp Olivas for examination, P/Cpl.
Marlyn Salangad, a forensic chemist therein,23confirmed in her Technical Report No. NB-448-88
that the contents of the four tea bags confiscated from appellant were positive for and had a total
On December 4, 1989, after weighing the evidence presented, the trial court rendered judgment
weight of 3.8 grams of marijuana.24 Thus, the corpus delicti of the crime had been fully proved
convicting appellant for a violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended,
with certainty and conclusiveness.25
and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, to pay a fine of twenty thousand
pesos and to pay the costs. The four tea bags of marijuana dried leaves were likewise ordered
confiscated in favor of the Government.12 Appellant would want to make capital of the alleged inconsistencies and improbabilities in the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Foremost, according to him, is the matter of who really
confiscated the marijuana tea bags from him since, in open court, Pejoro asserted that he had
Appellant now prays the Court to reverse the aforementioned judgment of the lower court,
nothing to do with the confiscation of the marijuana, but in the aforementioned "Receipt of
contending in his assignment of errors that the latter erred in (1) not upholding his defense of
Property Seized/Confiscated," he signed it as the one who seized the same.26
"frame-up", (2) not declaring Exhibit "G" (Receipt of Property Seized/Confiscated) inadmissible
in evidence, and (3) convicting him of a violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.13
Suffice it to say that whether it was Villaruz or Pejoro who confiscated the marijuana will not
really matter since such is not an element of the offense with which appellant is charged. What is
At the outset, it should be noted that while the People's real theory and evidence is to the effect
unmistakably clear is that the marijuana was confiscated from the possession of appellant. Even,
the appellant actually sold only two tea bags of marijuana dried leaves, while the other two tea
assuming arguendo that the prosecution committed an error on who actually seized the
bags were merely confiscated subsequently from his possession,14 the latter not being in any
marijuana from appellant, such an error or discrepancy refers only to a minor matter and, as
way connected with the sale, the information alleges that he sold and delivered four tea bags of
such, neither impairs the essential integrity of the prosecution evidence as a whole nor reflects
marijuana dried leaves.15 In view thereof, the issue presented for resolution in this appeal is
on the witnesses' honesty.27 Besides, there was clearly a mere imprecision of language since
merely the act of selling the two tea bags allegedly committed by appellant, and does not include
Pejoro obviously meant that he did not take part in the physical taking of the drug from the
the disparate and distinct issue of illegal possession of the other two tea bags which separate
person of appellant, but he participated in the legalseizure or confiscation thereof as the
offense is not charged herein.16
investigator of their unit.

To sustain a conviction for selling prohibited drugs, the sale must be clearly and unmistakably
Next, appellant adduces the argument that the twenty-peso bills allegedly confiscated from him
established.17 To sell means to give, whether for money or any other material consideration.18 It
were not powdered for finger-printing purposes contrary to the normal procedure in buy-bust
must, therefore, be established beyond doubt that appellant actually sold and delivered two tea
operations.28 This omission has been satisfactorily explained by Pfc. Virgilio Villaruz in his
bags of marijuana dried leaves to Sgt. Lopez, who acted as the poseur-buyer, in exchange for
testimony, as follows:
two twenty-peso bills.

Q: Is it the standard operating procedure of your unit

After an assiduous review and calibration of the evidence adduced by both parties, we are
that in conducting such operation you do not anymore
morally certain that appellant was caught in flagrante delicto engaging in the illegal sale of
provide a powder (sic) on the object so as to determine
prohibited drugs. The prosecution was able to prove beyond a scintilla of doubt that appellant,
the thumbmark or identity of the persons taking hold of
on October 22, 1988, did sell two tea bags of marijuana dried leaves to Sgt. Lopez. The latter
the object?
himself creditably testified as to how the sale took place and his testimony was amply
corroborated by his teammates. As between the straightforward, positive and corroborated
testimony of Lopez and the bare denials and negative testimony of appellant, the former A: We were not able to put powder on these
undeniably deserves greater weight and is more entitled to credence. denominations because we are lacking that kind of
material in our office since that item can be purchased
only in Manila and only few are producing that, sir.
We are aware that the practice of entrapping drug traffickers through the utilization of poseur-
buyers is susceptible to mistake, harassment, extortion and abuse.19 Nonetheless, such causes
for judicial apprehension and doubt do not obtain in the case at bar. Appellant's entrapment and xxx xxx xxx
arrest were not effected in a haphazard way, for a surveillance was conducted by the team
before the
buy-bust operation was effected.20 No ill motive was or could be attributed to them, aside from
2
 Q: Is it not a fact that your office is within (the) P.C. committed at any time and in any place.40 It is not contrary to human experience for a drug
Crime Laboratory, CIS, as well as the office of NICA? pusher to sell to a total stranger,41 for what matters is not an existing familiarity between the
buyer and seller but their agreement and the acts constituting the sale and delivery of the
marijuana leaves.42 While there may be instances where such sale could be improbable, taking
A: Our office is only adjacent to those offices but we
into consideration the diverse circumstances of person, time and place, as well as the
cannot make a request for that powder because they,
incredibility of how the accused supposedly acted on that occasion, we can safely say that those
themselves, are using that in their own work, sir.29
exceptional particulars are not present in this case.

The foregoing explanation aside, we agree that the failure to mark the money bills used for
Finally, appellant contends that he was subjected to physical and mental torture by the arresting
entrapment purposes can under no mode of rationalization be fatal to the case of the
officers which caused him to escape from Camp Olivas the night he was placed under
prosecution because the Dangerous Drugs Act punishes "any person who, unless authorized by
custody.43 This he asserts to support his explanation as to how his signatures on the documents
law, shall sell, administer, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport
earlier discussed were supposedly obtained by force and coercion.
any prohibited drug, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions."30 The dusting of said
bills with phosphorescent powder is only an evidentiary technique for identification purposes,
which identification can be supplied by other species of evidence. The doctrine is now too well embedded in our jurisprudence that for evidence to be believed, it
must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but must be credible in itself such as
the common experience and observation of mankind can approve as probable under the
Again, appellant contends that there was neither a relative of his nor any barangay official or
circumstances.44 The evidence on record is bereft of any support for appellant's allegation of
civilian to witness the seizure. He decries the lack of pictures taken before, during and after his
maltreatment. Two doctors, one for the prosecution45 and the other for the defense,46 testified on
arrest. Moreover, he was not reported to or booked in the custody of any barangay official or
the absence of any tell-tale sign or indication of bodily injury, abrasions or contusions on the
police authorities.31 These are absurd disputations. No law or jurisprudence requires that an
person of appellant. What is evident is that the cause of his abdominal pain was his peptic ulcer
arrest or seizure, to be valid, be witnessed by a relative, a barangay official or any other civilian,
from which he had been suffering even before his arrest.47 His own brother even corroborated
or be accompanied by the taking of pictures. On the contrary, the police enforcers having caught
that fact, saying that appellant has had a history of bleeding peptic ulcer.48
appellant in flagrante delicto, they were not only authorized but were also under the obligation to
effect a warrantless arrest and seizure.
Furthermore, if it is true that appellant was maltreated at Camp Olivas, he had no reason
whatsoever for not divulging the same to his brother who went to see him at the camp after his
Likewise, contrary to appellant's contention, there was an arrest report prepared by the police in
arrest and during his detention there.49Significantly, he also did not even report the matter to the
connection with his apprehension. Said Booking Sheet and Arrest Report32 states, inter alia, that
authorities nor file appropriate charges against the alleged malefactors despite the opportunity to
"suspect was arrested for selling two tea bags of suspected marijuana dried leaves and the
do so50 and with the legal services of counsel being available to him. Such omissions funnel
confiscation of another two tea bags of suspected marijuana dried leaves." Below these remarks
down to the conclusion that appellant's story is a pure fabrication.
was affixed appellant's signature. In the same manner, the receipt for the seized property,
hereinbefore mentioned, was signed by appellant wherein he acknowledged the confiscation of
the marked bills from him.33 These, and the events earlier discussed, soundly refute his allegations that his arrest was
baseless and premeditated for the NARCOM agents were determined to arrest him at all
costs.51 Premeditated or not, appellant's arrest was only the culmination, the final act needed for
However, we find and hereby declare the aforementioned exhibits inadmissible in evidence.
his isolation from society and it was providential that it came about after he was caught in the
Appellant's conformance to these documents are declarations against interest and tacit
very act of illicit trade of prohibited drugs. Accordingly, this opinion could have concluded on a
admissions of the crime charged. They were obtained in violation of his right as a person under
note of affirmance of the judgment of the trial court. However, Republic Act No. 6425, as
custodial investigation for the commission of an offense, there being nothing in the records to
amended, was further amended by Republic Act No. 7659 effective December 31, 1993,52 which
show that he was assisted by counsel.34 Although appellant manifested during the custodial
supervenience necessarily affects the original disposition of this case and entails additional
investigation that he waived his right to counsel, the waiver was not made in writing and in the
questions of law which we shall now resolve.
presence of counsel,35 hence whatever incriminatory admission or confession may be extracted
from him, either verbally or in writing, is not allowable in evidence.36 Besides, the arrest report is
self-serving and hearsay and can easily be concocted to implicate a suspect. II

Notwithstanding the objectionability of the aforesaid exhibits, appellant cannot thereby be The provisions of the aforesaid amendatory law, pertinent to the adjudication of the case at bar,
extricated from his predicament since his criminal participation in the illegal sale of marijuana are to this effect:
has been sufficiently proven. The commission of the offense of illegal sale of prohibited drugs
requires merely the consummation of the selling transaction37 which happens the moment the
Sec. 13. Sections 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 of Art. II of Republic Act No. 6425, as
buyer receives the drug from the seller.38 In the present case, and in light of the preceding
amended, known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, are hereby
discussion, this sale has been ascertained beyond any peradventure of doubt.
amended to read as follows:

Appellant then asseverates that it is improbable that he would sell marijuana to a total
xxx xxx xxx
stranger.39 We take this opportunity to once again reiterate the doctrinal rule that drug-pushing,
when done on a small scale as in this case, belongs to that class of crimes that may be
3
 Sec. 4. Sale, Administration, Delivery, Distribution and Since, obviously, the favorable provisions of Republic Act No. 7659 could neither have then
Transportation of Prohibited Drugs. — The penalty been involved nor invoked in the present case, a corollary question would be whether this court,
of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from at the present stage, can
five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall sua sponte apply the provisions of said Article 22 to reduce the penalty to be imposed on
be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by appellant. That issue has likewise been resolved in the cited case of People vs. Moran, et al.,
law, shall sell, administer, deliver, give away to another, ante., thus:
distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any prohibited
drug, or shall act as a broker in any of such
. . . . The plain precept contained in article 22 of the Penal Code, declaring
transactions.
the retroactivity of penal laws in so far as they are favorable to persons
accused of a felony, would be useless and nugatory if the courts of justice
xxx xxx xxx were not under obligation to fulfill such duty, irrespective of whether or not
the accused has applied for it, just as would also all provisions relating to
the prescription of the crime and the penalty.
Sec. 17. Section 20, Article IV of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended,
known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, is hereby amended to read as
follows: If the judgment which could be affected and modified by the reduced penalties provided in
Republic Act No. 7659 has already become final and executory or the accused is serving
sentence thereunder, then practice, procedure and pragmatic considerations would warrant and
Sec. 20. Application of Penalties, Confiscation and
necessitate the matter being brought to the judicial authorities for relief under a writ of habeas
Forfeiture of the Proceeds or Instrument of the Crime.
corpus.56
— The penalties for offenses under Sections 3, 4, 7, 8
and 9 of Article II and Sections 14, 14-A, 15 and 16 of
Article III of this Act shall be applied if the dangerous 2. Probably through oversight, an error on the matter of imposable penalties appears to have
drugs involved is in any of the following quantities: been committed in the drafting of the aforesaid law; thereby calling for and necessitating judicial
reconciliation and craftsmanship.
xxx xxx xxx
As applied to the present case, Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6425, as now further amended,
imposes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to
5. 750 grams or more of indian hemp or
P10,000,000.00 upon any person who shall unlawfully sell, administer, deliver, give away,
marijuana
distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any prohibited drug. That penalty, according to the
amendment to Section 20 of the law, shall be applied if what is involved is 750 grams or more of
xxx xxx xxx indian hemp or marijuana; otherwise, if the quantity involved is less, the penalty shall range
from prision correccional to reclusion perpetua depending upon the quantity.
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the
foregoing quantities, the penalty shall range In other words, there is here an overlapping error in the provisions on the penalty of reclusion
from prision correccional to reclusion perpetua by reason of its dual imposition, that is, as the maximum of the penalty where the
perpetua depending upon the quantity. marijuana is less than 750 grams, and also as the minimum of the penalty where the marijuana
involved is 750 grams or more. The same error has been committed with respect to the other
prohibited and regulated drugs provided in said Section 20. To harmonize such conflicting
1. Considering that herein appellant is being prosecuted for the sale of four tea bags of provisions in order to give effect to the whole law,57 we hereby hold that the penalty to be
marijuana with a total weight of only 3.8 grams and, in fact, stands to be convicted for the sale of
imposed where the quantity of the drugs involved is less than the quantities stated in the first
only two of those tea bags, the initial inquiry would be whether the patently favorable provisions
paragraph shall range from prision correccional to reclusion temporal, and not reclusion
of Republic Act perpetua. This is also concordant with the fundamental rule in criminal law that all doubts should
No. 7659 should be given retroactive effect to entitle him to the lesser penalty provided
be construed in a manner favorable to the accused.
thereunder, pursuant to Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code.

3. Where, as in this case, the quantity of the dangerous drug is only 3.8 grams, hence covered
Although Republic Act No. 6425 was enacted as a special law, albeit originally amendatory and
by the imposable range of penalties under the second paragraph of Section 20, as now
in substitution of the previous Articles 190 to 194 of the Revised Penal Code,53 it has long been
modified, the law provides that the penalty shall be taken from said range "depending upon the
settled that by force of Article 10 of said Code the beneficient provisions of Article 22 thereof quantity" of the drug involved in the case. The penalty in said second paragraph constitutes a
applies to and shall be given retrospective effect to crimes punished by special laws.54 The
complex one composed of three distinct penalties, that is, prision correccional,prision
execution in said article would not apply to those convicted of drug offenses since habitual
mayor, and reclusion temporal. In such a situation, the Code provides that each one shall form a
delinquency refers to convictions for the third time or more of the crimes of serious or less period, with the lightest of them being the minimum, the next as the medium, and the most
serious physical injuries, robo, hurto, estafa or falsification.55
severe as the maximum period.58

4
Ordinarily, and pursuant to Article 64 of the Code, the mitigating and aggravating circumstances The situation, however, is different where although the offense is defined in and ostensibly
determine which period of such complex penalty punished under a special law, the penalty therefor is actually taken from the Revised Penal
shall be imposed on the accused. The peculiarity of the second paragraph of Section Code in its technical nomenclature and, necessarily, with its duration, correlation and legal
20, however, is its specific mandate, above quoted, that the penalty shall instead depend upon effects under the system of penalties native to said Code. When, as in this case, the law
the quantity of the drug subject of the criminal transaction.59 Accordingly, by way of exception to involved speaks of prision correccional, in its technical sense under the Code, it would
Article 77 of the Code and to subserve the purpose of Section 20 of Republic Act No. 7659, each consequently be both illogical and absurd to posit otherwise. More on this later.
of the aforesaid component penalties shall be considered as a principal imposable penalty
depending on the quantity of the drug involved. Thereby, the modifying circumstances will not
For the nonce, we hold that in the instant case the imposable penalty under Republic Act No.
altogether be disregarded. Since each component penalty of the total complex penalty will have
6425, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, is prision correccional, to be taken from the
to be imposed separately as determined by the quantity of the drug involved, then the modifying
medium period thereof pursuant to Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code, there being no
circumstances can be used to fix the proper period of that component penalty, as shall hereafter
attendant mitigating or aggravating circumstance.
be explained.

5. At this juncture, a clarificatory discussion of the developmental changes in the penalties

It would, therefore, be in line with the provisions of Section 20 in the context of our aforesaid
imposed for offenses under special laws would be necessary.
disposition thereon that, unless there are compelling reasons for a deviation, the quantities of
the drugs enumerated in its second paragraph be divided into three, with the resulting quotient,
and double or treble the same, to be respectively the bases for allocating the penalty Originally, those special laws, just as was the conventional practice in the United States but
proportionately among the three aforesaid periods according to the severity thereof. Thus, if the differently from the penalties provided in our Revised Penal Code and its Spanish origins,
marijuana involved is below 250 grams, the penalty to be imposed shall be prision correccional; provided for one specific penalty or a range of penalties with definitive durations, such as
from 250 to 499 grams, prision mayor; and 500 to imprisonment for one year or for one to five years but without division into periods or any
749 grams, reclusion temporal. Parenthetically, fine is imposed as a conjunctive penalty only if technical statutory cognomen. This is the special law contemplated in and referred to at the time
the penalty is reclusion perpetua to death.60 laws like the Indeterminate Sentence Law61 were passed during the American regime.

Now, considering the minimal quantity of the marijuana subject of the case at bar, the penalty Subsequently, a different pattern emerged whereby a special law would direct that an offense
of prision correccional is consequently indicated but, again, another preliminary and cognate thereunder shall be punished under the Revised Penal Code and in the same manner provided
issue has first to be resolved. therein. Inceptively, for instance, Commonwealth Act No. 30362 penalizing non-payment of
salaries and wages with the periodicity prescribed therein, provided:
4. Prision correccional has a duration of 6 months and 1 day to 6 years and, as a divisible
penalty, it consists of three periods as provided in the text of and illustrated in the table provided Sec. 4. Failure of the employer to pay his employee or laborer as required
by Article 76 of the Code. The question is whether or not in determining the penalty to be by section one of this Act, shall prima facie be considered a fraud committed
imposed, which is here to be taken from the penalty of prision correccional, the presence or by such employer against his employee or laborer by means of false
absence of mitigating, aggravating or other circumstances modifying criminal liability should be pretenses similar to those mentioned in article three hundred and fifteen,
taken into account. paragraph four, sub-paragraph two (a) of the Revised Penal Code and shall
be punished in the same manner as therein provided.63
We are not unaware of cases in the past wherein it was held that, in imposing the penalty for
offenses under special laws, the rules on mitigating or aggravating circumstances under the Thereafter, special laws were enacted where the offenses defined therein were specifically
Revised Penal Code cannot and should not be applied. A review of such doctrines as applied in punished by the penalties as technically named and understood in the Revised Penal Code.
said cases, however, reveals that the reason therefor was because the special laws involved These are exemplified by Republic Act No. 1700 (Anti-Subversion Act) where the penalties
provided their own specific penalties for the offenses punished thereunder, and which penalties ranged from arresto mayor to
were not taken from or with reference to those in the Revised Penal Code. Since the penalties death;64 Presidential Decree No. 1612 (Anti-Fencing Decree) where the penalties run
then provided by the special laws concerned did not provide for the minimum, medium or from arresto mayor to prision mayor; and Presidential Decree
maximum periods, it would consequently be impossible to consider the aforestated modifying No. 1866 (illegal possession and other prohibited acts involving firearms), the penalties wherefor
circumstances whose main function is to determine the period of the penalty in accordance with may involve prision mayor, reclusion temporal, reclusion perpetua or death.
the rules in Article 64 of the Code.
Another variant worth mentioning is Republic Act No. 6539
This is also the rationale for the holding in previous cases that the provisions of the Code on the (Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972) where the penalty is imprisonment for not less than 14 years and
graduation of penalties by degrees could not be given supplementary application to special laws, 8 months and not more than 17 years and 4 months, when committed without violence or
since the penalties in the latter were not components of or contemplated in the scale of penalties intimidation of persons or force upon things; not less than 17 years and 4 months and not more
provided by Article 71 of the former. The suppletory effect of the Revised Penal Code to special than 30 years, when committed with violence against or intimidation of any person, or force upon
laws, as provided in Article 10 of the former, cannot be invoked where there is a legal or physical things; and life imprisonment to death, when the owner, driver or occupant of the carnapped
impossibility of, or a prohibition in the special law against, such supplementary application. vehicle is killed.

5
With respect to the first example, where the penalties under the special law are different from The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended by P.D. No. 1623, contains
and are without reference or relation to those under the Revised Penal Code, there can be no no explicit grant of discretion to the Court in the application of the penalty
suppletory effect of the rules for the application of penalties under said Code or by other relevant prescribed by the law. In such case, the court must be guided by the rules
statutory provisions based on or applicable only to said rules for felonies under the Code. In this prescribed by the Revised Penal Code concerning the application of
type of special law, the legislative intendment is clear. penalties which distill the "deep legal thought and centuries of experience in
the administration of criminal laws." (Emphasis ours.)66
The same exclusionary rule would apply to the last given example, Republic Act No. 6539. While
it is true that the penalty of 14 years and Under the aforestated considerations, in the case of the Dangerous Drugs Act as now amended
8 months to 17 years and 4 months is virtually equivalent to the duration of the medium period by Republic Act No. 7659 by the incorporation and prescription therein of the technical penalties
of reclusion temporal,such technical term under the Revised Penal Code is not given to that defined in and constituting integral parts of the three scales of penalties in the Code, 67 with
penalty for carnapping. Besides, the other penalties for carnapping attended by the qualifying much more reason should the provisions of said Code on the appreciation and effects of all
circumstances stated in the law do not correspond to those in the Code. The rules on penalties attendant modifying circumstances apply in fixing the penalty. Likewise, the different kinds or
in the Code, therefore, cannot suppletorily apply to Republic Act No. 6539 and special laws of classifications of penalties and the rules for graduating
the same formulation. such penalties by degrees should have supplementary effect on Republic Act No. 6425, except if
they would result in absurdities as will now be explained.
On the other hand, the rules for the application of penalties and the correlative effects thereof
under the Revised Penal Code, as well as other statutory enactments founded upon and While not squarely in issue in this case, but because this aspect is involved in the discussion on
applicable to such provisions of the Code, have suppletory effect to the penalties under the the role of modifying circumstances, we have perforce to lay down the caveat that mitigating
former Republic Act circumstances should be considered and applied only if they affect the periods and
No. 1700 and those now provided under Presidential Decrees Nos. 1612 and 1866. While these the degrees of the penalties within rational limits.
are special laws, the fact that the penalties for offenses thereunder are those provided for in the
Revised Penal code lucidly reveals the statutory intent to give the related provisions on penalties
Prefatorily, what ordinarily are involved in the graduation and consequently determine the
for felonies under the Code the corresponding application to said special laws, in the absence of
degree of the penalty, in accordance with the rules in Article 61 of the Code as applied to the
any express or implicit proscription in these special laws. To hold otherwise would be to sanction
scale of penalties in Article 71, are the stage of execution of the crime and the nature of the
an indefensible judicial truncation of an integrated system of penalties under the Code and its
participation of the accused. However, under paragraph 5 of Article 64, when there are two or
allied legislation, which could never have been the intendment of Congress.
more ordinary mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstance, the penalty shall be
reduced by one degree. Also, the presence of privileged mitigating circumstances, as provided
In People vs. Macatanda,65 a prosecution under a special law (Presidential Decree No. 533, in Articles 67 and 68, can reduce the penalty by one or two degrees, or even more. These
otherwise known as the Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974), it was contended by the prosecution provisions of Articles 64(5), 67 and 68 should not apply in toto in the determination of the proper
that Article 64, paragraph 5, of the Revised Penal Code should not apply to said special law. We penalty under the aforestated second paragraph of section 20 of Republic Act No. 6425, to avoid
said therein that — anomalous results which could not have been contemplated by the legislature.

We do not agree with the Solicitor General that P.D. 533 is a special Thus, paragraph 5 of Article 61 provides that when the law prescribes a penalty in some manner
law entirely distinct from and unrelated to the Revised Penal Code. From not specially provided for in the four preceding paragraphs thereof, the courts shall proceed by
the nature of the penalty imposed which is in terms of the classification and analogy therewith. Hence, when the penalty prescribed for the crime consists of one or two
duration of penalties as prescribed in the Revised Penal Code, which is not penalties to be imposed in their full extent, the penalty next lower in degree shall likewise consist
for penalties as are ordinarily imposed in special laws, the intent seems of as many penalties which follow the former in the scale in Article 71. If this rule were to be
clear that P.D. 533 shall be deemed as an amendment of the Revised Penal applied, and since the complex penalty in this
Code, with respect to the offense of theft of large cattle (Art. 310) or case consists of three discrete penalties in their full extent, that is,
otherwise to be subject to applicable provisions thereof such as Article 104 prision correccional, prision mayor and reclusion temporal, then one degree lower would
of the Revised Penal Code . . . . Article 64 of the same Code should, be arresto menor, destierro and arresto mayor. There could, however, be no further reduction by
likewise, be applicable, . . . . (Emphasis supplied.) still one or two degrees, which must each likewise consist of three penalties, since only the
penalties of fine and public censure remain in the scale.
More particularly with regard to the suppletory effect of the rules on penalties in the Revised
Penal Code to Republic Act No. 6425, in this case involving Article 63(2) of the Code, we have The Court rules, therefore, that while modifying circumstances may be appreciated to determine
this more recent pronouncement: the periods of the corresponding penalties, or even reduce the penalty by degrees, in no case
should such graduation of penalties reduce the imposable penalty beyond or lower than prision
correccional. It is for this reason that the three component penalties in the second paragraph of
. . . Pointing out that as provided in Article 10 the provisions of the Revised
Section 20 shall each be considered as an independent principal penalty, and that the lowest
Penal Code shall be "supplementary" to special laws, this Court held that
penalty should in any event be prision correccional in order not to depreciate the seriousness of
where the special law expressly grants to the court discretion in applying the
drug offenses. Interpretatio fienda est ut res magis valeat quam pereat. Such interpretation is to
penalty prescribed for the offense, there is no room for the application of the
be adopted so that the law may continue to have efficacy rather than fail. A perfect judicial
provisions of the Code . . . .

6
solution cannot be forged from an imperfect law, which impasse should now be the concern of What irresistibly emerges from the preceding disquisition, therefore, is that under the
and is accordingly addressed to Congress. concurrence of the principles of literal interpretation, which have been rationalized by
comparative decisions of this Court; of historical interpretation, as explicated by the antecedents
of the law and related contemporaneous legislation; and of structural interpretation, considering
6. The final query is whether or not the Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable to the case
the interrelation of the penalties in the Code as supplemented by Act No. 4103 in an integrated
now before us. Apparently it does, since drug offenses are not included in nor has appellant
scheme of penalties, it follows that the minimum of the indeterminate sentence in this case shall
committed any act which would put him within the exceptions to said law and the penalty to be
be the penalty next lower to that prescribed for the offense. Thereby we shall have interpreted
imposed does not involve reclusion perpetua or death, provided, of course, that the penalty as
the seeming ambiguity in Section 1 of Act No. 4103 in such a way as to harmonize laws with
ultimately resolved will exceed one year of imprisonment.68 The more important aspect,
laws, which is the best mode of interpretation.71
however, is how the indeterminate sentence shall be ascertained.

The indeterminate Sentence Law is a legal and social measure of compassion, and should be
It is true that Section 1 of said law, after providing for indeterminate sentence for an offense
liberally interpreted in favor of the accused.72 The "minimum" sentence is merely a period at
under the Revised Penal Code, states that "if the offense is punished by any other law, the court
which, and not before, as a matter of grace and not of right, the prisoner may merely be allowed
shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not
to serve the balance of his sentence outside of his confinement.73 It does not constitute the
exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum
totality of the penalty since thereafter he still has to continue serving the rest of his sentence
term prescribed by the same." We hold that this quoted portion of the section indubitably refers
under set conditions. That minimum is only the period when the convict's eligibility for parole
to an offense under a special law wherein the penalty imposed was not taken from and is without
may be considered. In fact, his release on parole may readily be denied if he is found unworthy
reference to the Revised Penal Code, as discussed in the preceding illustrations, such that it
thereof, or his reincarceration may be ordered on legal grounds, even if he has served the
may be said that the "offense is punished" under that law.
minimum sentence.

There can be no sensible debate that the aforequoted rule on indeterminate sentence for
It is thus both amusing and bemusing if, in the case at bar, appellant should be begrudged the
offenses under special laws was necessary because of the nature of the former type of penalties
benefit of a minimum sentence within the range of arresto mayor, the penalty next lower
under said laws which were not included or contemplated in the scale of penalties in Article 71 of
to prision correccional which is the maximum range we have fixed through the application of
the Code, hence there could be no minimum "within the range of the penalty next lower to that
Articles 61 and 71 of the Revised Penal Code. For, with fealty to the law, the court may set the
prescribed by the Code for the offense," as is the rule for felonies therein. In the illustrative
minimum sentence at 6 months of arresto mayor, instead of 6 months and 1 day of prision
examples of penalties in special laws hereinbefore provided, this rule applied, and would still
correccional. The difference, which could thereby even involve only one day, is hardly worth the
apply, only to the first and last examples. Furthermore, considering the vintage of Act No. 4103
creation of an overrated tempest in the judicial teapot.
as earlier noted, this holding is but an application and is justified under the rule
of contemporanea expositio.69
ACCORDINGLY, under all the foregoing premises, the judgment of conviction rendered by the
court a quo against accused-appellant Martin Simon y Sunga is AFFIRMED, but with the
We repeat, Republic Act No. 6425, as now amended by Republic Act No. 7659, has
MODIFICATION that he should be, as he hereby is, sentenced to serve an indeterminate
unqualifiedly adopted the penalties under the Revised Penal Code in their technical terms,
penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as the minimum, to six (6) years of prision
hence with their technical signification and effects. In fact, for purposes of determining
correccional, as the maximum thereof.
the maximum of said sentence, we
have applied the provisions of the amended Section 20 of said law to arrive at prision
correccional and Article 64 of the Code to impose the same in the medium period. Such offense, SO ORDERED.
although provided for in a special law, is now in effect punished by and under the Revised Penal
Code. Correlatively, to determine the minimum, we must apply the first part of the aforesaid
Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Padilla, Bidin, Romero, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan and
Section 1 which directs that "in imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by the
Mendoza, JJ., concur.
Revised Penal Code, or its amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to an
indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending
circumstances, could be properly imposedunder the rules of said Code, and the minimum which Bellosillo, J., is on leave.
shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the
offense." (Emphasis ours.)

A divergent pedantic application would not only be out of context but also an admission of the
hornbook maxim that qui haeret in litera haeret in cortice. Fortunately, this Court has never gone
only skin-deep in its construction of Act. No. 4103 by a mere literal appreciation of its provisions.
Thus, with regard to the phrase in Section 2 thereof excepting from its coverage "persons
convicted of offenses punished with death penalty or life imprisonment," we have held that what
is considered is the penalty actually imposed and not the penalty imposable under the law,70and
that reclusion perpetua is likewise embraced therein although what the law states is "life Separate Opinions
imprisonment".

7
DAVIDE, JR., J., concurring and dissenting: On the other hand, an offense is considered punished under any other law (or special law) if it is
not defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code but by such other law.
I am still unable to agree with the view that (a) in appropriate cases where the penalty to be
imposed would beprision correccional pursuant to the second paragraph of Section 20 of R.A. It is thus clear that an offense is punished by the Revised Penal Code if both its definition and
No. 6425, as amended by Section 17 of R.A. No. 7659, the sentence to be meted out, applying the penalty therefor are found in the said Code, and it is deemed punished by a special law if its
the Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act No. 4103, as amended), should be that whose minimum is definition and the penalty therefor are found in the special law. That the latter imports or borrows
within the range of the penalty next lower, i.e., arresto mayor; and (b) the presence of two or from the Revised Penal Code its nomenclature of penalties does not make an offense in the
more mitigating circumstances not offset by any mitigating circumstances or of a privileged special law punished by or punishable under the Revised Penal Code. The reason is quite
mitigating circumstance shall not reduce the penalty by one or two degrees if the penalty to be simple. It is still the special law that defines the offense and imposes a penalty therefor, although
imposed, taking into account the quantity of the dangerous drugs involved, would be prision it adopts the Code's nomenclature of penalties. In short, the mere use by a special law of a
correccional. penalty found in the Revised Penal Code can by no means make an offense thereunder an
offense "punished or punishable" by the Revised Penal Code.
I
Thus, I cannot subscribe to the view that since R.A. No. 7659 had adopted the penalties
prescribed by the Revised Penal Code in drug cases, offenses related to drugs should now be
The first view is based on the proposition that since R.A. No. 7659 had unqualifiedly adopted the
considered as punished under the Revised Penal Code. If that were so, then we are also bound,
penalties under the Revised Penal Code in their technical terms, hence also their technical
ineluctably, to declare that such offenses are mala in se and to apply the Articles of the Revised
signification and effects, then what should govern is the first part of Section 1 of the
Penal Code regarding the stages of a felony (Article 6), the nature of participation (Article 16),
Indeterminate Sentence Law which directs that:
accessory penalties (Articles 40-45), application of penalties to principals, accomplices, and
accessories (Article 46 et seq.), complex crimes (Article 48), and graduation of penalties (Article
in imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by the Revised Penal 61), among others. We cannot do otherwise without being drawn to an inconsistent posture
Code, or its amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to an which is extremely hard to justify.
indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which, in
view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the
I respectfully submit then that the adoption by the Dangerous Drugs Act of the penalties in the
rules of the said Code, and the minimum which shall be within the range of
Revised Penal Code does not make an offense under the Dangerous Drugs Act an
the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense.
offense punished by the Revised Penal Code. Consequently, where the proper penalty to be
imposed under Section 20 of the Dangerous Drugs Act is prisioncorreccional, then, applying the
Elsewise stated, by the adoption of the penalties provided for in the Revised Penal Code for the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the indeterminate sentence to be meted on the accused should be
offenses penalized under the Dangerous Drugs Act (R.A. No. 6425), as amended, the latter that whose minimum should not be less than the minimum prescribed by the special law (the
offenses would now be considered as punished under the Revised Penal Code for purposes of Dangerous Drugs Act), i.e., not lower than six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correccional.
the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
II
Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act. No. 4103, as amended by Act. No. 4225 and
R.A. No. 4203) also provides that:
The majority opinion holds the view that while the penalty provided for in Section 20 of the
Dangerous Drugs Act is a complex one composed of three distinct penalties, viz., prision
if the offense is punished by any other law, the court shall sentence the correccional, prision mayor, and reclusion temporal,and that pursuant to Article 77 of the
accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not Revised Penal Code, each should form a period, with the lightest of them being the minimum,
exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less the next as the medium, and the most severe as the maximum, yet, considering that under the
than the minimum prescribed by the same (Emphasis supplied). said second paragraph of Section 20 the penalty depends on the quantity of the drug subject of
the criminal transaction, then by way of exception to Article 77 of the Revised Penal Code and to
subserve the purpose of Section 20, as amended, each of the aforesaid component penalties
There are, therefore, two categories of offenses which should be taken into account in the
shall be considered as a principal penalty depending on the quantity of the drug involved.
application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law: (1) offenses punished by the Revised Penal
Thereafter, applying the modifying circumstances pursuant to Article 64 of the Revised Penal
Code, and (2) offenses punished by other laws (or special laws). Code, the proper period of the component penalty shall then be fixed.

The offenses punished by the Revised Penal Code are those defined and penalized in Book II
To illustrate, if the quantity of the drugs involved (e.g., marijuana below 250 grams) the proper
thereof, which is thus appropriately titled CRIMES AND PENALTIES. To simplify further, a crime principal penalty should be prision correccional, but there is one mitigating and no aggravating
is deemed punished under the Revised Penal Code if it is defined by it, and none other, as a
circumstance, then the penalty to be imposed should be prision correccional in its minimum
crime and is punished by a penalty which is included in the classification of Penalties in Chapter
period. Yet, the majority opinion puts a limit to such a rule. It declares:
II, Title III of Book I thereof.

The Court rules, therefore, that while modifying circumstances may be

appreciated to determine the periods of the corresponding penalties, or
8
 even reduce the penalty by degrees, in no case should such graduation of 2. Upon a person over fifteen and under eighteen years
penalties reduce the imposable penalty beyond or lower than of age the penalty next lover than that prescribed by
prision correccional. It is for this reason that the three component penalties law shall be imposed, but always in the proper period.
in the second paragraph of Section 20 shall each be considered as an
independent principal penalty, and that the lowest penalty should in any
I do not think that as to the second paragraph of Section 20 of the Dangerous Drugs Act, as
event be prision correccional in order to depreciate the seriousness of drug
amended by Section 17 of R.A. No. 7659, we can be at liberty to apply the Revised Penal Code
offenses.
in one aspect and not to apply it in another.

Simply put, this rule would allow the reduction from reclusion
Feliciano and Quiason, JJ., concur.
temporal — if it is the penalty to be imposed on the basis of the quantity of the drugs involved —
by two degrees, or to prision correccional, if there are two or more mitigating circumstances and
no aggravating circumstance is present (paragraph 5, Article 64, Revised Penal Code) or if there
is a privileged mitigating circumstances of, say, minority (Article 68, Revised Penal Code), or
under circumstances covered by Article 69 of the Revised Penal Code. Yet, if the proper penalty # Separate Opinions
to be imposed is prision mayor, regardless of the fact that a reduction by two degrees is proper,
it should only be reduced by one degree because the rule does not allow a reduction
beyond prision correccional. Finally, if the proper penalty to be imposed is prision DAVIDE, JR., J., concurring and dissenting:
correccional, no reduction at all would be allowed.
I am still unable to agree with the view that (a) in appropriate cases where the penalty to be
I find the justification for the rule to be arbitrary and unfair. It is arbitrary because within the same imposed would beprision correccional pursuant to the second paragraph of Section 20 of R.A.
second paragraph involving the same range of penalty, we both allow and disallow the No. 6425, as amended by Section 17 of R.A. No. 7659, the sentence to be meted out, applying
application of Article 64(5), Article 68, and Article 69 of the Revised Penal Code. The reason for the Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act No. 4103, as amended), should be that whose minimum is
the disallowance, viz., in order not to depreciate the seriousness of drug offenses, is within the range of the penalty next lower, i.e., arresto mayor; and (b) the presence of two or
unconvincing because Section 20 of the Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended by R.A. more mitigating circumstances not offset by any mitigating circumstances or of a privileged
No. 7659, has in fact "depreciated" the seriousness of drug offenses by providing quantity as mitigating circumstance shall not reduce the penalty by one or two degrees if the penalty to be
basis for the determination of the proper penalty and limiting fine only to cases punishable imposed, taking into account the quantity of the dangerous drugs involved, would be prision
by reclusion perpetua to death. It is unfair because an accused who is found guilty of possessing correccional.
MORE dangerous
drugs — say 500 to 749 grams of marijuana, in which case the penalty to be imposed would
be reclusion temporal— may only be sentenced to six (6) months and one (1) day of prision I
correccional minimum because of privileged mitigating circumstances. Yet, an accused who is
found guilty of possession of only one (1) gram of marijuana — in which case the penalty to be The first view is based on the proposition that since R.A. No. 7659 had unqualifiedly adopted the
imposed is prision correccional — would not be entitled to a reduction thereof even if he has the penalties under the Revised Penal Code in their technical terms, hence also their technical
same number of privileged mitigating circumstances as the former has. signification and effects, then what should govern is the first part of Section 1 of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law which directs that:
Also, if the privileged mitigating circumstance happens to be the minority of the accused, then he
is entitled to the reduction of the penalty as a matter of right pursuant to Article 68 of the Revised in imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by the Revised Penal
Penal Code, which reads: Code, or its amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to an
indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which, in
Art. 68. Penalty to be imposed upon a person under eighteen years of age. view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the
— When the offender is a minor under eighteen years and his case is one rules of the said Code, and the minimum which shall be within the range of
coming under the provisions of the paragraph next to the last of Article 80 of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense.
this Code, the following rules shall be observed:
Elsewise stated, by the adoption of the penalties provided for in the Revised Penal Code for the
1. Upon a person under fifteen but over nine years of offenses penalized under the Dangerous Drugs Act (R.A. No. 6425), as amended, the latter
age, who is not exempted from liability by reason of the offenses would now be considered as punished under the Revised Penal Code for purposes of
court having declared that he acted with discernment, a the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
discretionary penalty shall be imposed, but always
lower by two degrees at least than that prescribed by Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act. No. 4103, as amended by Act. No. 4225 and
law for the crime which he committed. R.A. No. 4203) also provides that:

9
 if the offense is punished by any other law, the court shall sentence the Revised Penal Code, each should form a period, with the lightest of them being the minimum,
accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not the next as the medium, and the most severe as the maximum, yet, considering that under the
exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less said second paragraph of Section 20 the penalty depends on the quantity of the drug subject of
than the minimum prescribed by the same (Emphasis supplied). the criminal transaction, then by way of exception to Article 77 of the Revised Penal Code and to
subserve the purpose of Section 20, as amended, each of the aforesaid component penalties
shall be considered as a principal penalty depending on the quantity of the drug involved.
There are, therefore, two categories of offenses which should be taken into account in the
Thereafter, applying the modifying circumstances pursuant to Article 64 of the Revised Penal
application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law: (1) offenses punished by the Revised Penal
Code, the proper period of the component penalty shall then be fixed.
Code, and (2) offenses punished by other laws (or special laws).

To illustrate, if the quantity of the drugs involved (e.g., marijuana below 250 grams) the proper
The offenses punished by the Revised Penal Code are those defined and penalized in Book II
principal penalty should be prision correccional, but there is one mitigating and no aggravating
thereof, which is thus appropriately titled CRIMES AND PENALTIES. To simplify further, a crime
circumstance, then the penalty to be imposed should be prision correccional in its minimum
is deemed punished under the Revised Penal Code if it is defined by it, and none other, as a
period. Yet, the majority opinion puts a limit to such a rule. It declares:
crime and is punished by a penalty which is included in the classification of Penalties in Chapter
II, Title III of Book I thereof.
The Court rules, therefore, that while modifying circumstances may be
appreciated to determine the periods of the corresponding penalties, or
On the other hand, an offense is considered punished under any other law (or special law) if it is
even reduce the penalty by degrees, in no case should such graduation of
not defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code but by such other law.
penalties reduce the imposable penalty beyond or lower than
prision correccional. It is for this reason that the three component penalties
It is thus clear that an offense is punished by the Revised Penal Code if both its definition and in the second paragraph of Section 20 shall each be considered as an
the penalty therefor are found in the said Code, and it is deemed punished by a special law if its independent principal penalty, and that the lowest penalty should in any
definition and the penalty therefor are found in the special law. That the latter imports or borrows event be prision correccional in order to depreciate the seriousness of drug
from the Revised Penal Code its nomenclature of penalties does not make an offense in the offenses.
special law punished by or punishable under the Revised Penal Code. The reason is quite
simple. It is still the special law that defines the offense and imposes a penalty therefor, although
Simply put, this rule would allow the reduction from reclusion
it adopts the Code's nomenclature of penalties. In short, the mere use by a special law of a
temporal — if it is the penalty to be imposed on the basis of the quantity of the drugs involved —
penalty found in the Revised Penal Code can by no means make an offense thereunder an
by two degrees, or to prision correccional, if there are two or more mitigating circumstances and
offense "punished or punishable" by the Revised Penal Code.
no aggravating circumstance is present (paragraph 5, Article 64, Revised Penal Code) or if there
is a privileged mitigating circumstances of, say, minority (Article 68, Revised Penal Code), or
Thus, I cannot subscribe to the view that since R.A. No. 7659 had adopted the penalties under circumstances covered by Article 69 of the Revised Penal Code. Yet, if the proper penalty
prescribed by the Revised Penal Code in drug cases, offenses related to drugs should now be to be imposed is prision mayor, regardless of the fact that a reduction by two degrees is proper,
considered as punished under the Revised Penal Code. If that were so, then we are also bound, it should only be reduced by one degree because the rule does not allow a reduction
ineluctably, to declare that such offenses are mala in se and to apply the Articles of the Revised beyond prision correccional. Finally, if the proper penalty to be imposed is prision
Penal Code regarding the stages of a felony (Article 6), the nature of participation (Article 16), correccional, no reduction at all would be allowed.
accessory penalties (Articles 40-45), application of penalties to principals, accomplices, and
accessories (Article 46 et seq.), complex crimes (Article 48), and graduation of penalties (Article
I find the justification for the rule to be arbitrary and unfair. It is arbitrary because within the same
61), among others. We cannot do otherwise without being drawn to an inconsistent posture
second paragraph involving the same range of penalty, we both allow and disallow the
which is extremely hard to justify.
application of Article 64(5), Article 68, and Article 69 of the Revised Penal Code. The reason for
the disallowance, viz., in order not to depreciate the seriousness of drug offenses, is
I respectfully submit then that the adoption by the Dangerous Drugs Act of the penalties in the unconvincing because Section 20 of the Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended by R.A.
Revised Penal Code does not make an offense under the Dangerous Drugs Act an No. 7659, has in fact "depreciated" the seriousness of drug offenses by providing quantity as
offense punished by the Revised Penal Code. Consequently, where the proper penalty to be basis for the determination of the proper penalty and limiting fine only to cases punishable
imposed under Section 20 of the Dangerous Drugs Act is prisioncorreccional, then, applying the by reclusion perpetua to death. It is unfair because an accused who is found guilty of possessing
Indeterminate Sentence Law, the indeterminate sentence to be meted on the accused should be MORE dangerous
that whose minimum should not be less than the minimum prescribed by the special law (the drugs — say 500 to 749 grams of marijuana, in which case the penalty to be imposed would
Dangerous Drugs Act), i.e., not lower than six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correccional. be reclusion temporal— may only be sentenced to six (6) months and one (1) day of prision
correccional minimum because of privileged mitigating circumstances. Yet, an accused who is
found guilty of possession of only one (1) gram of marijuana — in which case the penalty to be
II imposed is prision correccional — would not be entitled to a reduction thereof even if he has the
same number of privileged mitigating circumstances as the former has.
The majority opinion holds the view that while the penalty provided for in Section 20 of the
Dangerous Drugs Act is a complex one composed of three distinct penalties, viz., prision
correccional, prision mayor, and reclusion temporal,and that pursuant to Article 77 of the

10
Also, if the privileged mitigating circumstance happens to be the minority of the accused, then he
is entitled to the reduction of the penalty as a matter of right pursuant to Article 68 of the Revised
Penal Code, which reads:

Art. 68. Penalty to be imposed upon a person under eighteen years of age.
— When the offender is a minor under eighteen years and his case is one
coming under the provisions of the paragraph next to the last of Article 80 of
this Code, the following rules shall be observed:

1. Upon a person under fifteen but over nine years of

age, who is not exempted from liability by reason of the
court having declared that he acted with discernment, a
discretionary penalty shall be imposed, but always
lower by two degrees at least than that prescribed by
law for the crime which he committed.

2. Upon a person over fifteen and under eighteen years

of age the penalty next lover than that prescribed by
law shall be imposed, but always in the proper period.

I do not think that as to the second paragraph of Section 20 of the Dangerous Drugs Act, as
amended by Section 17 of R.A. No. 7659, we can be at liberty to apply the Revised Penal Code
in one aspect and not to apply it in another.

Feliciano and Quiason, JJ., concur.

11