People of the Philippines vs. Roberto Piasidad

The penalty imposable for violation of Section 15, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, depends upon the quantity of the prohibited drugs involved, such that if the quantity of methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu is less than 200 grams, the penalty shall be within the range of prision correccional (from six months and one day to six years), and not life imprisonment.

The accused-appellant was charged under Section 15, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drug Act of 1972, in relation to Section 21 thereof, for possession of two decks of shabu. The amendatory law, Republic Act No. 7659, took effect on December 31, 1993, and modified the penalties under the Dangerous Drug Act, making the quantity of the prohibited drug a determining factor in the imposable penalty. The Court's ruling in People vs. Simon interpreted these amended provisions to require that the penalty be calibrated according to the quantity of drugs involved.

Accused-appellant Roberto Piasidad, also known as Obet or Bobot, was charged with violation of Section 15, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drug Act of 1972, in relation to Section 21 thereof, for possession of two decks of shabu weighing 0.20 gram in the aggregate. On June 24, 1992, the Regional Trial Court of the Seventh Judicial Region (Branch 10, Cebu City) found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of P20,000.00.

Accused-appellant seasonably interposed an appeal to the Supreme Court. A notice to file the appellant's brief was sent to Atty. Erwin E. Estandarte, accused-appellant's counsel of record, on November 9, 1995, but per the registry return card, said counsel had moved out from his given address without giving a forwarding address. Thereafter, a certain Atty. Egbert S. Capalla, on behalf of accused-appellant, filed an Omnibus Manifestation and Motion to Submit Appeal for Early Resolution.

In that motion, Atty. Capalla argued that given the minimal quantity of the prohibited drug involved — 0.20 gram of shabu — accused-appellant was entitled to the lesser penalty provided for under the second paragraph of Republic Act No. 7659, pursuant to Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code. He further argued that applying the ruling in People vs. Simon (G.R. No. 93028, July 29, 1994), the imposable penalty should be the indeterminate sentence of six months of arresto mayor as minimum to six years of prision correccional, or even lesser at the discretion of the Court, as maximum. He also contended that as of the date of the filing of the pleading, accused-appellant had a total of three years and seven months of imprisonment to his credit from the promulgation of the appealed decision, not to mention his preventive detention during trial, and that he had therefore served more than the given penalty.

• Application of Republic Act No. 7659: The People of the Philippines, as plaintiff-appellee, did not file any responsive pleading to the Omnibus Manifestation and Motion to Submit Appeal for Early Resolution; the Court resolved the motion on its own application of the law and jurisprudence.

• Reduction of Penalty under Republic Act No. 7659: Accused-appellant argued that given the minimal quantity of the prohibited drug involved, 0.20 gram of shabu, he was entitled to the lesser penalty provided for under the second paragraph of Republic Act No. 7659, pursuant to Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Application of People vs. Simon: Accused-appellant argued that applying the ruling in People vs. Simon to the case at bar, the imposable penalty should be the indeterminate sentence of six months of arresto mayor as minimum to six years of prision correccional, or even lesser at the discretion of the Court, as maximum.
• Service of Penalty: Accused-appellant argued that considering that as of the date of the filing of the pleading, he had a total of three years and seven months of imprisonment to his credit from the promulgation of the appealed decision, not to mention his preventive detention during trial, he had served more than the given penalty.

• Dismissal of Appeal: Whether the appeal should be dismissed for failure of accused-appellant's counsel to file the required brief within the reglementary period.
• Imposable Penalty: Whether accused-appellant is entitled to a reduced penalty under Republic Act No. 7659 and the ruling in People vs. Simon given the minimal quantity of the prohibited drug involved.
• Release of Accused-Appellant: Whether accused-appellant should be released from imprisonment if he has already served more than the reduced penalty.

• Dismissal of Appeal: Yes. The appeal was dismissed pursuant to Section 8, Rule 124 of the New Rules on Criminal Procedure, due to the failure of accused-appellant's counsel to file the required brief within the reglementary period.
• Imposable Penalty: Yes. The Court found its ruling in People vs. Simon applicable to the present case, being favorable to accused-appellant, and held that under Section 20, Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, if the quantity of methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu is less than 200 grams, the penalty imposable shall be within the range of prision correccional (from six months and one day to six years).
• Release of Accused-Appellant: Yes, conditionally. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections was directed to verify the allegation that accused-appellant had been imprisoned for more than three years and seven months, and if found true and correct, to immediately release him, unless he was being detained or held for some other lawful cause or charge.

• Dismissal of Appeal: The Court resolved to dismiss the appeal due to the failure of accused-appellant's counsel to file the required brief within the reglementary period, pursuant to Section 8, Rule 124 of the New Rules on Criminal Procedure. The notice to file the brief was sent to counsel of record on November 9, 1995, but counsel had moved out from his given address without giving a forwarding address, resulting in no brief being filed.

• Imposable Penalty: The Court found its ruling in People vs. Simon applicable to the present case, being favorable to accused-appellant. Under the provisions of Section 20, Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, which took effect on December 31, 1993, and as interpreted by the Court in People vs. Simon, if the quantity of methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu is less than 200 grams, the penalty imposable, in the event of conviction, shall be within the range of prision correccional (from six months and one day to six years). The present case, involving the sale of less than one gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, was found to be on all fours with People vs. Manalo (245 SCRA 493 [1995]), which involved less than one gram (0.06) of the prohibited drug, wherein the Court applied People vs. Simon by reducing the penalty of the accused-appellant from life imprisonment to an indeterminate sentence of six months of arresto mayor as minimum to two years and four months of prision correccional as maximum.

• Release of Accused-Appellant: The Court directed the Director of the Bureau of Corrections to verify the allegation that accused-appellant had been imprisoned for more than three years and seven months. If the same is found to be true and correct, the Director of the Bureau of Corrections was ordered to immediately release accused-appellant, unless he was being detained or held for some other lawful cause or charge.

• Quantity-based penalty for drug offenses — Under Section 20 of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, the penalty imposable for drug offenses depends upon the quantity of the prohibited drugs involved. If the quantity of methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu is less than 200 grams, the penalty shall be within the range of prision correccional (from six months and one day to six years), not life imprisonment. The Court applied this doctrine to reduce the penalty of accused-appellant, who was convicted for possession of only 0.20 gram of shabu.

• Retroactive application of penal laws favorable to the accused — Pursuant to Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code, penal laws shall be given retroactive effect insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal. The Court applied the amendatory provisions of Republic Act No. 7659, which took effect on December 31, 1993, to the present case, being favorable to accused-appellant, even though the offense was committed and the conviction was rendered before the amendment took effect.

• "However, the Court finds its ruling in People vs. Simon (supra) to the effect that the penalty imposable depends upon the quantity of the prohibited drugs involved, applicable to the present case being favorable to accused-appellant." — This passage establishes the Court's application of the quantity-based penalty doctrine to the present case, notwithstanding the dismissal of the appeal, because the ruling was favorable to the accused-appellant.

• "Under the provisions of Section 20, Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, which took effect on December 31, 1995, and as interpreted by the Court in People vs. Simon (supra), if the quantity of the methylamphetamine hydrochloride of shabu is less than 200 grams, the penalty imposable, in the event of conviction, should be affirmed, shall be within the range of prision correccional (from six months and one (1) day to six (6) years)." — This passage articulates the controlling rule on the penalty for drug offenses involving less than 200 grams of shabu, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 and interpreted in People vs. Simon.

• "The present case, involving the sale of less than one gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, is on all fours with the cases of People vs. Manalo (245 SCRA 493 [1995] which involves less than one (1) gram (.06) of the prohibited drug, wherein the Court applied People vs. Simon by reducing the penalty of the accused-appellant from life imprisonment to an indeterminate sentence of six (6) months arresto mayor as minimum, to two (2) years and four (4) months of prision correccional, as maximum." — This passage demonstrates the Court's application of the Manalo precedent to the present case, finding the factual circumstances analogous and thus warranting the same penalty reduction.

• People vs. Simon, G.R. No. 93028, July 29, 1994 — Controlling precedent establishing the doctrine that the penalty imposable for drug offenses depends upon the quantity of the prohibited drugs involved. The Court applied this ruling to reduce the penalty of accused-appellant.

• People vs. Manalo, 245 SCRA 493 (1995) — Followed precedent involving less than one gram (0.06) of the prohibited drug, wherein the Court applied People vs. Simon by reducing the penalty from life imprisonment to an indeterminate sentence of six months of arresto mayor as minimum to two years and four months of prision correccional as maximum. The Court found the present case on all fours with this case.

• Section 15, Article II, Republic Act No. 6425 — The provision defining and penalizing the offense of possession of prohibited drugs, under which accused-appellant was charged and convicted.
• Section 21, Republic Act No. 6425 — The provision in relation to which the offense was charged, concerning the conspiracy or confederation to commit drug offenses.
• Section 20, Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 — The provision governing the penalty for drug offenses, as amended to make the penalty depend on the quantity of the prohibited drugs involved. The Court applied this provision to reduce the penalty for possession of less than 200 grams of shabu to within the range of prision correccional.
• Article 22, Revised Penal Code — The provision on the retroactive effect of penal laws insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony. The Court applied this provision to give retroactive effect to the amendatory provisions of Republic Act No. 7659, being favorable to accused-appellant.
• Section 8, Rule 124, New Rules on Criminal Procedure — The procedural rule authorizing the dismissal of an appeal for failure to file the required brief within the reglementary period. The Court invoked this provision to dismiss the appeal.

Narvasa, C.J., Davide, Jr., Francisco, and Panganiban, JJ., concurred.