People vs. Noque

People of the Philippines vs. Joselito Noque y Gomez

[G.R. No. 175319, January 15, 2010]

Doctrines:

Elements of an Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs.- The prosecution successfully proved that appellant violated Section 15, Article III of RA 6425. The prosecution’s evidence established the concurrence of the elements of an illegal sale of a dangerous drug, to wit: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.

Elements of an Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs.- The prosecution was also successful in proving that appellant violated Section 16, Article III of RA 6425. It adduced evidence that established the presence of the elements of illegal possession of a dangerous drug. It showed that (1) the appellant was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug, (2) such possession is not authorized by law, and (3) the appellant was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug.

Mere possession of a regulated drug per se constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused absent a satisfactory explanation of such possession the onus probandi is shifted to the accused, to explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi.

Minor variance between the information and the evidence does not alter the nature of the offense, nor does it determine or qualify the crime or penalty, so that even if a discrepancy exists, this cannot be pleaded as a ground for acquittal. In other words, accused’s right to be informed of the charges against him has not been violated because where an accused is charged with a specific crime, he is duly informed not only of such specific crime but also of lesser crimes or offenses included therein.

Facts:

Accused Joselito Noque was caught in a buy-bust operation conducted by SPO4 Norberto Murillo on January 30, 2001. SPO4 Murillo frisked the appellant and recovered the buy-bust money. He also confiscated the pranela bag that contained a large quantity of crystalline granules suspected to be shabu. Two Informations were filed before the RTC of Manila docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 01-189458 and 01-189459 charging of the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of a regulated drug.

The trial court convicted the accused on both charges. The trial court held that while the Informations alleged methamphetamine hydrochloride as the drug seized from the appellant, the drug actually confiscated which was ephedrine, which by means of chemical reaction could change into methamphetamine. The trial court further held that under Section 4, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court, a variance in the offense charged in the complaint or information and that proved shall result in the conviction for the offense charged which is included in the offense proved.

The CA affirmed the trial court’s decision. The CA held that the designations and allegations in the informations are for the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of regulated drugs.

Hence, the accused appealed the case before the Supreme Court.

Issues:

1.   Whether or not appellant is guilty of illegal sale of dangerous drugs.

2.   Whether or not appellant is guilty of illegal possession of dangerous drugs.

3.   Whether or not appellant’s right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations was not violated.

Held:

1.       The prosecution successfully proved that appellant violated Section 15, Article III of RA 6425. The prosecution’s evidence established the concurrence of the elements of an illegal sale of a dangerous drug, to wit: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.

In the instant case, the police officers conducted a buy-bust operation after receiving confirmed surveillance reports that the appellant was engaged in the illicit sale of dangerous drugs at No. 630 San Andres Street, Malate, Manila. PO1 Balais, the designated poseur-buyer of the buy-bust team, personally identified the appellant as the person who volunteered to sell to him P1,000.00 worth of white crystalline substance alleged to be shabu. The police officer received this illegal merchandise after giving the appellant the marked money as payment. Undoubtedly, the appellant is guilty of selling a dangerous drug.

2.       The prosecution was also successful in proving that appellant violated Section 16, Article III of RA 6425. It adduced evidence that established the presence of the elements of illegal possession of a dangerous drug. It showed that (1) the appellant was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug, (2) such possession is not authorized by law, and (3) the appellant was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug.

The police buy-bust team apprehended the appellant for the sale of a white crystalline substance then proceeded to search the premises. They found a large quantity of the same substance inside the bag that contained the two sachets of the regulated drug sold to PO1 Balais. Appellant did not offer any explanation why he is in custody of the said substance. Neither did the appellant present any authorization to possess the same. Mere possession of a regulated drug per se constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused absent a satisfactory explanation of such possession the onus probandi is shifted to the accused, to explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi. With the burden of evidence shifted to the appellant, it was his duty to explain his innocence on the regulated drug seized from his person. However, as already mentioned, he did not offer any excuse or explanation regarding his possession thereof.

3.       Appellants right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations was not violated. The Supreme Court agrees with the findings of the CA and the trial court, as well as the testimony of the forensic chemical officer, that the drug known as ephedrine has a central nervous stimulating effect similar to that of methamphetamine. In fact, ephedrine is an important precursor used in the clandestine synthesis of methamphetamine, which in crystallized form is methamphetamine hydrochloride.

The CA correctly ruled that Sections 4 and 5, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court, can be applied by analogy in convicting the appellant of the offenses charged, which are included in the crimes proved. Under these provisions, an offense charged is necessarily included in the offense proved when the essential ingredients of the former constitute or form part of those constituting the latter. At any rate, a minor variance between the information and the evidence does not alter the nature of the offense, nor does it determine or qualify the crime or penalty, so that even if a discrepancy exists, this cannot be pleaded as a ground for acquittal. In other words, his right to be informed of the charges against him has not been violated because where an accused is charged with a specific crime, he is duly informed not only of such specific crime but also of lesser crimes or offenses included therein.