People v. Morico
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Elements of the Anti-Narcotics Command (NARCOM) received information about a certain "Sixto" selling marijuana in Barangay Sabutan, Silang, Cavite. A buy-bust operation was conducted where a confidential informant acted as the poseur-buyer. The informant handed a marked ten-peso bill to the appellant, who then gave the informant a small package. Upon a pre-arranged signal, the NARCOM team arrested the appellant and recovered the marked bill. The confiscated items were found positive for marijuana. Procedural History: The appellant was charged with violation of Sections 4 and 15, Article II of R.A. No. 6425. The Regional Trial Court of Cavite found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 4 and 15 of R.A. No. 6425 and imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine of P25,000.00. The Petition: The appellant appealed the decision, claiming that the trial court erred in convicting him of an offense not charged in the information and in giving credence to the prosecution's witnesses despite alleged contradictions. He also argued that the non-presentation of the informant was fatal to the prosecution's case and that his signatures on certain documents were obtained in violation of his constitutional rights.
Issue(s)
Whether the appellant could be convicted of violating Sections 4 and 15 of R.A. No. 6425 when the information only charged him with violating Section 4. Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses despite alleged contradictions. Whether the non-presentation of the informant was fatal to the prosecution's case. Whether the appellant's signatures on the Receipt of Property Seized, Booking Sheet and Arrest Report, and "Pansamantalang Pagtalikod sa mga Karapatan sa Artikulo 125" were obtained in violation of his constitutional right to counsel during custodial investigation. Whether the penalty imposed by the trial court was correct considering the amendments to the Dangerous Drugs Act.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court ruled that the appellant could not be convicted of an offense not charged in the information, specifically Section 15 of R.A. No. 6425, as it violated his constitutional right to due process. The Court also found that the evidence on record was sufficient to sustain a conviction for the offense charged in the information. Regarding the penalty, the Court applied R.A. No. 7659 retroactively in favor of the appellant, imposing an indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to six (6) years of prision correccional, as maximum, and deleted the fine.
Ratio Decidendi
On the conviction for an offense not charged: The Court held that an accused cannot be convicted of an offense not charged in the information. This principle is rooted in the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the charges against him and his right to due process. The information specifically charged the appellant with violation of Section 4, Article II of R.A. No. 6425, which pertains to prohibited drugs. However, the trial court convicted him of violating both Sections 4 and 15 of the same law. Section 15 deals with regulated drugs, a distinct offense from the sale of prohibited drugs under Section 4. To convict an accused of an offense for which he was not charged would be a violation of his fundamental rights, as established in cases like People v. Guevarra. Therefore, the conviction for Section 15 was erroneous. On the credibility of prosecution witnesses: The Court found that the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses referred to minor or trivial matters that did not detract from the fact that the appellant was caught in flagrante delicto during the buy-bust operation. It is a well-settled rule that minor inconsistencies in testimonies, which are natural and even enhance truthfulness by dispelling suspicion of a rehearsed testimony, do not destroy the credibility of witnesses, especially when their testimonies corroborate each other on material points, as held in People v. Arcega. The presumption of regularity in the performance of duties in favor of law enforcers (Sgt. Espiritu and CIC Gelido) also applied, and the appellant failed to impute any false motive to them. On the non-presentation of the informant: The Court reiterated the rule that the presentation of prosecution witnesses is a prerogative of the prosecutor, not the appellant or the trial court. The prosecution is deemed to have presented sufficient evidence to pin down the appellant without the informant's testimony, as stated in People v. San Andres. If the appellant believed the informant's testimony would exculpate him, he could have availed of compulsory process to have the informant produced as his witness, as per People v. Nabunat. Therefore, the presumption that the informant's testimony was suppressed to the prosecution's detriment could not arise. On the admissibility of signed documents: The Court ruled that the appellant's signature on the Booking Sheet and Arrest Report (Exh. "D") was not an admission of guilt but merely a statement of his being booked and the fact of arrest, citing People v. Bandin. However, the signature on the Receipt of Property Seized (Exh. "C") was deemed inadmissible as evidence because it was obtained without the assistance of counsel, violating his constitutional right. This constituted a declaration against interest and a tacit admission, but its admission would be a violation of his constitutional rights, as stated in People v. Mauyao. Despite this, the Court found the remaining evidence sufficient for conviction. On the correct penalty: The Court noted that the penalty imposed by the trial court was based on the old law. However, R.A. No. 7659 amended the Dangerous Drugs Act. The Court applied R.A. No. 7659 retroactively in favor of the appellant, as it provided a more lenient penalty. Citing People v. De Lara, the Court held that if the quantity of marijuana is below 250 grams, the penalty under R.A. No. 7659 is prision correccional. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum penalty was arresto mayor. Thus, the indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to six (6) years of prision correccional, as maximum, was imposed, and the fine was deleted.
Main Doctrine
An accused cannot be convicted of an offense not charged in the information, as this violates the constitutional right to be informed of the charges and the right to due process. Furthermore, the application of amendatory laws, particularly those favoring the accused, should be retroactive.