People v. Celiz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Accused-appellants Tirzo Celiz and Julius Bangero were charged with violating Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), as amended. The information alleged that on May 24, 1986, in San Enrique, Iloilo, they conspired to sell one match box of dried marijuana flowering tops to Danilo Layao for P30.00. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court, Branch 28, Iloilo City, found both accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced them to life imprisonment, a fine of P20,000.00, and costs. They appealed this decision. The Petition: The accused-appellants sought reversal of the RTC decision, raising issues regarding the sufficiency of the information and the insufficiency of evidence.
Issue(s)
Whether the information sufficiently charges an offense under R.A. 6425. Whether the evidence presented sufficiently proves the offense charged, considering the alleged ambiguity regarding the 'sex' of the marijuana.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court, finding no reversible error. The accused-appellants were found guilty of violating Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, and their sentence of life imprisonment and a fine of P20,000.00 was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi
On the sufficiency of the information: The Court held that the information sufficiently charges an offense under R.A. 6425. The argument that the information failed to allege that the marijuana produces "the physiological effects of a narcotic or a hallucinogenic drug" was dismissed. The Court clarified that R.A. 6425 penalizes the sale of "prohibited drugs," and while the law defines "dangerous drugs" to include substances with such physiological effects, the allegation of producing such effects is merely descriptive and not an essential element of the offense of selling prohibited drugs. The definition of "prohibited drug" explicitly includes "Indian hemp and its derivatives," which is defined to encompass marijuana in all its forms. On the sufficiency of the evidence: The Court found no merit in the contention that the evidence was insufficient due to the alleged distinction between "male" and "female" marijuana. The Court reiterated the definition of Indian hemp under Section 2(i) of R.A. 6425, which clearly states that it "embraces every kind, class, genus or specie of the plant cannabis sativa L., . . . and embraces every kind, class and character thereof, whether dried or fresh and flowering or fruiting tops or any parts or portions of the plant, seeds thereof, and all its geographic varieties, whether as a reefer, resin, extract, tincture or in any form whatsoever." Therefore, the "sex" of the marijuana is irrelevant. The chemistry report from the Philippine Constabulary Crime Laboratory (PCCL) proving the contents of the match box to be marijuana, which was not objected to by the defense, established the corpus delicti with certainty and conclusiveness. The Court also addressed minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, noting that such discrepancies, if any, were minor and did not detract from the established fact that the accused-appellants sold the prohibited drug to Danilo Layao, who paid them with marked money and received the match box containing marijuana.
Main Doctrine
The 'sex' of Indian hemp or marijuana is irrelevant for a conviction for its sale. The definition of Indian hemp under R.A. 6425 embraces all kinds, classes, and characters thereof, whether dried or fresh, flowering or fruiting tops, or any parts or portions of the plant, seeds thereof, and all its geographic varieties, in any form whatsoever. The chemistry report proving the contents to be marijuana, if not objected to, establishes the corpus delicti with certainty.