GR No 93028

People of the Philippines vs Martin Simon

GR No 93028                   July 29, 1994

Facts:

Simon was charged with a violation of Section 4, Article 2 of RA No 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. He was arrested during a buy-bust operation led by the police unit at Camp Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga. Apparently, he was caught red-handed of selling two marijuana teabags in exchange for money amounting to P40, without knowing that the same was marked money.

As the police unit narrated the buy-bust operation that ensued which led to the arrest of Simon, the latter devised a narrative to show that he was manhandled by the police. However, this was of no moment by the court absent an evidence to prove the abuse. Simon was found guilty of the offense charged.

However, RA No 6425, as amended, was further amended by RA No 7659, which supervenience necessarily affects the original disposition of this case

Issue:

          WON Simon would be punished under the Special Penal Law or RPC.

Held:

Originally, special laws, just as was the conventional practice in the US but differently from the penalties provided for in our RPC and its Spanish origins, provided for one specific penalty or a range of penalties with definitive durations. This is the special law contemplated in and referred to at the time laws like the Indeterminate Sentence Law were passed during the American regime.

Subsequently, a different pattern emerged whereby a special law would direct that an offense thereunder shall be punished under RPC and in the same manner as provided therein. As provided in Article 10 of the RPC, provisions of the RPC shall be “supplementary” to special laws; where the special law expressly grants to the court discretion in applying the penalty prescribed for the offense, there is no room for the application of the provisions of the Code.

Apparently, Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable to the case at bar. This is so because the drug offenses are not included in, nor has Simon committed any act which would put him within the exceptions to said law and penalty to be imposed does not involve reclusion perpetua or death, provided that the penalty as ultimately resolved will exceed one year of imprisonment. The most important however, is how the ISLAW shall be ascertained.

It is true that Section 1 of said law, after providing for indeterminate sentence for an offense under RPC, states that ‘if offense is punishable by any other law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law, and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same.