People Vs.

Simon

G.R. No. 93028 July 29, 1994

Facts

Martin Simon was charged on November 10, 1988 with a violation of RA 6425, or the Dangerous Drugs
Act of 1972. On October 22, 1988, Simon was arrested in a buy-bus operation at Barangay Sto. Cristo,
Guagua, Pampanga after he sold four tea bags of marijuana to a Narcotics Command poseur-buyer in
consideration of the sum of P40.00. The marijuana confiscated weighed 3.8 kg.

After weighing the evidence presented, the trial court rendered judgment convicting Simon for a
violation of Sec 4 Article II of RA 6425 sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to
pay a fine of P20,000. Martin filed an appeal before the Supreme Court (SC) to reverse the judgment of
the lower court.

The SC affirmed the judgment of the trial court for the reasons that Simon’s participation in the illegal
sale of marijuana has been sufficiently proven. The commission of the offense of illegal sale of
prohibited drugs requires merely the consummation of the selling transaction. Simon was caught in
flagrante delicto (caught in the act) engaging in the illegal sale of prohibited drugs through the buy-bust
operation of the Narcotics Command and that this was witnessed and testified by the police who
conducted the operation.

The decision could have already ended with an affirmation of the decision; however, the RA 6425 was
further amended by RA 7659 in 1993 which necessarily affected the nature of the case and entailed
additional question of law as to the gravity of punishment that would be imposed on Simon.

The provisions of the amended law that posed a conflict in determining the sentence of Simon were:
xxxx xxxx xxxx

Sec. 4. Sale, Administration, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Prohibited

Drugs - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred
thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall sell,
administer, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any
prohibited drug, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.

xxxx xxxx xxxx

Sec. 20. Application of Penalties, Confiscation, and Forfeiture of the Proceeds or

Instrument of the Crime – The penalties for offenses under Sections 3, 4, 7 , 8 and 9 of Article II
and Sections 14, 14-A, 15, and 16 of this Act shall be applied if the dangerous drugs involved is in
any of the following quantities:

xxxx xxxx xxxx

 5. 750 grams or more of Indian hemp or marijuana

xxxx xxxx xxxx

Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalty shall
range from prision correccional to reclusion perpetua depending upon the quantity.

Under the amended law, Simon will be entitled to a lesser degree of penalty that could range
from prision correccional to reclusion perpetua as opposed to a final sentence of life imprisonment.
There is an overlapping error in the provisions on the penalty of reclusion perpetua by reason of its dual
imposition, that is, as the maximum of the penalty where the marijuana is less than 750 grams, and also
as the minimum of the penalty where the marijuana involved is 750 grams or more.

Issues:

1.) Whether or not the favorable provisions of the Amended Dangerous Drug Act should be given
retroactive effect to entitle Simon to the lesser penalty pursuant to Article 22 of RPC.
2.) Whether or not the provisions of the RPC on the matter of imposable penalties can be
supplementary to special laws such as the amended Dangerous Drugs Act.

Ruling:

1.) Yes. Pursuant to Article 22 of the RPC which states that the penal laws shall have a retroactive effect
insofar as they favor the persons guilty of felony but is not a habitual criminal although at the time of
publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same.
Although the Dangerous Drug Act is a special law, by virtue of Article 10 of the RPC, the RPC can extend
suppletory application to special laws unless the contrary is provided.

2.)Yes. As provided in Article 10 of the RPC, the Code shall be supplementary to special laws unless the
special law should specially provide the contrary. The Dangerous Drug Act of 1972 contains no explicit
grant of discretion to the court in the application of penalty prescribed by the law. In such case, the
court must be guided by the rules prescribed by the Revised Penal Code concerning the application of
penalties.

The use and reference of the Dangerous Drug Act of the technical penalties defined in and constituting
integral parts of the three scales in the RPC provide more reason that the provisions of the RPC can be
used to supplement the Dangerous Drug Act in fixing its penalty. The different kinds or classifications of
penalties and the rules for graduating such penalties by degrees should have supplementary effect on
the said special law except if they would result in absurdities.

As supplemented by the RPC, the court held that the imposable penalty on Simon under the Dangerous
Drug Act was prision correccional in its medium period pursuant to Article 64 of the RPC, there being no
attendant mitigating or aggravating circumstances.
Section 4 of RA 6425 - which imposes a penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from
P500,000 to P1,000,000 upon any person who shall unlawfully sell, administer deliver, give away,
distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any prohibited drug.

Article 10 – Offenses not subject to the provisions of this Code. – Offenses which are or in the future
may be punishable under special laws are not subject to the provisions of this Code. This Code shall be
supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should specially provide the contrary.

Article 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws – Penal Laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they
favor the persons guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of
Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of publication of such laws a final sentence has been
pronounced and the convict is serving the same.

Article 62. Effect of the attendance of mitigating or aggravating circumstances and of habitual
delinquency- Mitigating or aggravating circumstances and habitual delinquency shall be taken into
account for the purpose of diminishing or increasing the penalty in conformity with the following rules:

5. Habitual delinquency shall have the following effects:

(a) Upon a third conviction the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided by law for the last
crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods;
(b) Upon a fourth conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime of
which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium
periods; and
(c) Upon a fifth or additional conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided for the
last crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor in its maximum
period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period.

Notwithstanding the provisions of this article, the total of the two penalties to be imposed upon the
offender, in conformity herewith, shall in no case exceed 30 years.

For the purpose of this article, a person shall be deemed to be habitual delinquent, is within a period of
ten years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical
injuries, robo, hurto, estafa or falsification, he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or
oftener.
Art. 64. Rules for the application of penalties which contain three periods. — In cases in which the
penalties prescribed by law contain three periods, whether it be a single divisible penalty or composed
of three different penalties, each one of which forms a period in accordance with the provisions of
Articles 76 and 77, the court shall observe for the application of the penalty the following rules,
according to whether there are or are not mitigating or aggravating circumstances:
1.) When there are neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, they shall impose the penalty
prescribed by law in its medium period.
2.) When only a mitigating circumstances is present in the commission of the act, they shall impose the
penalty in its minimum period.
3.) When an aggravating circumstance is present in the commission of the act, they shall impose the
penalty in its maximum period.
4.) When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall reasonably offset
those of one class against the other according to their relative weight.
5.) When there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances are present,
the court shall impose the penalty next lower to that prescribed by law, in the period that it may deem
applicable, according to the number and nature of such circumstances
6.) Whatever may be the number and nature of the aggravating circumstances, the courts shall not
impose a greater penalty than that prescribed by law, in its maximum period.
7.) Within the limits of each period, the court shall determine the extent of the penalty according to the
number and nature of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the greater and lesser extent of
the evil produced by the crime.

Art. 76. Legal period of duration of divisible penalties. — The legal period of duration of divisible
penalties shall be considered as divided into three parts, forming three periods, the minimum, the
medium, and the maximum in the manner shown in the following table:
TABLE SHOWING THE DURATION OF DIVISIBLE PENALTIES AND THE TIME INCLUDED IN EACH OF THEIR
PERIODS
Art. 77. When the penalty is a complex one composed of three distinct penalties. — In cases in which
the law prescribes a penalty composed of three distinct penalties, each one shall form a period; the
lightest of them shall be the minimum the next the medium, and the most severe the maximum period.