G.R. No. 175319
January 15, 2010
People vs. Joselito Noque y Gomez
Facts:
Appellant Joselito Noque Gomez was subject to
a buybust operation, from which articles alleged to be methamphetamine
hydrochloride (shabu) were seized. The seized articles were taken to the police station
and submitted to the crime laboratory for examination to determine the chemical
composition of the crystalline substance, which positively resulted to be
ephedrine, a regulated drug.
Lower Courts prounounced appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt for
the violation of Section Sections 15 and 16 of RA 6425 that define and penalize
the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of regulated drugs.
Joselito appealed contending that the lower courts erred in convicting
him despite the information, alleging methamphetamine hydrochloride as the
seized item when the drug actually seized was ephedrine. Joselito contends that
his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusations against him.
Ruling:
The Court affirmed the lower courts decision that the designations and
allegations in the information are for the crimes of illegal sale and illegal
possession of regulated drugs. Ephedrine is a regulated drug, pursuant to Board
Resolution No. 2, Series of 1988. Under Sections 4 and 5, Rule 120 of the Rules
of Court, 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. Appellant’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.
The Court also affirmed the CA’s decision regarding the penalty imposed
on appellant in relation to the amount of shabu seized (in this case, 0.060
grams and 2.754 grams. It held that in the absence of any mitigating or
aggravating circumstances in this case, the penalty should be imposed in its
medium period, ranging from six months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two
years, four months and one day of prision correccional, as maximum.)
As to the violation of Section 16, Article III of RA 6425, as amended,
penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine of P500,000.00 was imposed on the appellant for the
possession of 339.6075 grams of prohibited drugs without license or
prescription.
0 comments:
Post a Comment