People vs. Flores

The penalty for cultivating marijuana under Section 9, Article II of R.A. 6425, as amended, is graduated according to the quantity of drugs involved; if the quantity is less than 750 grams, the imposable penalty ranges from prision correccional to reclusion temporal, not reclusion perpetua to death. The Court also held that whether an offense is capital for purposes of applying Section 3, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court is determined solely by the allegations in the information; if the imposable penalty based on those allegations is non-capital, the mandatory procedure for pleas of guilty to capital offenses does not apply.

Accused-appellant Vicente Flores y Mondragon was charged with cultivating 230 grams of marijuana. Upon arraignment, he pleaded guilty. The trial court sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and a fine of P500,000, appreciating the mitigating circumstance of his plea. Flores moved for reconsideration, arguing that the penalty should be lower based on the quantity of drugs, but the trial court denied the motion.

• The Charge: On October 14, 1996, Vicente Flores was charged with violating Section 9, Article II of R.A. 6425 for willfully and unlawfully planting and cultivating 230 grams of Indian hemp or marijuana.
• The Plea: During arraignment on January 8, 1999, Flores, assisted by counsel, pleaded guilty. The trial court inquired into the voluntariness of the plea and Flores's comprehension thereof, informing him that the offense carried a penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. Flores remained firm in his plea.
• The RTC Decision: On January 12, 1999, the trial court found Flores guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Appreciating the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty without any aggravating circumstance, and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the court sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and a fine of P500,000.
• Motion for Reconsideration: Flores moved to reconsider the penalty, arguing that for 230 grams of marijuana, the penalty should only be six months of arresto mayor to two years and four months of prision correccional under People v. Simon. The trial court denied the motion on February 2, 1999.

• Petitioner maintained that the trial court erred in imposing reclusion perpetua because the quantity of marijuana involved was only 230 grams, which, pursuant to Section 17 of R.A. 7659 and People v. Simon, warrants only an indeterminate penalty of arresto mayor to prision correccional.
• Petitioner argued that the trial court erred in failing to observe Section 3, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court, which mandates a searching inquiry, the presentation of evidence by the prosecution, and an inquiry into whether the accused wishes to present evidence when the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense.
• Petitioner further contended that the fine of P500,000 should be deleted because under People v. Simon, a fine is imposed as a conjunctive penalty only if the penalty is reclusion perpetua to death.

• Respondent, through the Office of the Solicitor General, agreed with petitioner that the penalty of reclusion perpetua and the fine were erroneously imposed.
• Respondent countered that the trial court did not err in failing to observe Section 3, Rule 116 because the offense was not capital. Because the imposable penalty for 230 grams of marijuana is only prision correccional, the applicable rule is Section 4, Rule 116, which makes the reception of evidence discretionary upon the court.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the trial court erred in failing to comply with the mandatory procedure under Section 3, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court for pleas of guilty to capital offenses.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the trial court erred in imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine of P500,000 for the cultivation of 230 grams of marijuana.

• Procedural: The Court held that the trial court did not err. The determinant of whether an offense is capital is the information itself. Because the information alleged a quantity of 230 grams, the imposable penalty was only prision correccional, rendering the offense non-capital. Accordingly, Section 4, Rule 116 applies, making the reception of evidence discretionary rather than mandatory. The trial court also sufficiently inquired into the voluntariness of the plea.
• Substantive: The Court held that the trial court erred. Under Section 20 of R.A. 6425, as amended by Section 17 of R.A. 7659, the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death applies only if the quantity of marijuana is 750 grams or more. For quantities below 750 grams, the penalty ranges from prision correccional to reclusion temporal. Applying People v. Simon, 230 grams falls under prision correccional. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty, the proper penalty is four months of arresto mayor to two years, four months, and one day of prision correccional medium. The fine was deleted because it is only conjunctively imposed if the penalty is reclusion perpetua to death.

• Graduated Penalties under the Dangerous Drugs Act — The penalties for offenses under the Dangerous Drugs Act are graduated based on the quantity of dangerous drugs involved. If the quantity is less than the threshold amounts specified in the first paragraph of Section 20 of R.A. 6425 (e.g., less than 750 grams of marijuana), the penalty ranges from prision correccional to reclusion temporal, not reclusion perpetua to death. The component penalties are imposed depending on the quantity: below 250 grams (prision correccional), 250 to 499 grams (prision mayor), and 500 to 749 grams (reclusion temporal).
• Determination of Capital Offense for Plea of Guilty — Whether an offense is capital for purposes of applying Section 3, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court is determined by the allegations in the information. If the information charges an offense where the imposable penalty based on the facts alleged is non-capital, the mandatory procedure for pleas of guilty to capital offenses does not apply; instead, Section 4, Rule 116 governs, making the reception of evidence discretionary.

• "Consequently, the penalty prescribed in Section 9 will apply only if the quantity of the dangerous drugs involved falls within the first paragraph of Section 20 as amended, i.e., 750 grams or more of Indian hemp or marijuana. If the quantity is lower than that specified therein, i.e., less than 750 grams, the penalty shall be from 'prision correccional to reclusion perpetua,' pursuant to the second paragraph of said Section 20."
• "As to whether the offense charged is capital or not, the only determinant factor is the information itself."

• People v. Simon, 234 SCRA 555 [1994] — Controlling precedent. Established the rule that for drug quantities below the threshold in Section 20, the penalty is prision correccional to reclusion temporal, and provided the graduated scale for penalties based on quantity. Followed.
• People v. Dayot, 187 SCRA 637 [1990] — Cited for the three mandatory requirements when an accused pleads guilty to a capital offense under Section 3, Rule 116. Distinguished, as the rule was held inapplicable to the present non-capital charge.

• Section 9, Article II of R.A. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) — Prescribes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine for cultivating marijuana. The Court held this provision is subject to the quantity-based graduation in Section 20.
• Section 20 of R.A. 6425, as amended by Section 17 of R.A. 7659 — Provides the threshold quantities for the application of maximum penalties. The Court applied the second paragraph, which states that if the quantity involved is less than 750 grams of marijuana, the penalty shall range from prision correccional to reclusion perpetua (interpreted in Simon as reclusion temporal).
• Section 3, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court — Governs plea of guilty to a capital offense. The Court held this inapplicable because the offense charged was non-capital based on the information.
• Section 4, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court — Governs plea of guilty to a non-capital offense. The Court held this applicable, making the reception of evidence discretionary.
• Article 13, paragraph 7 of the Revised Penal Code — Provides the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty. Applied to determine the proper period of the indeterminate penalty.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law — Applied to determine the specific duration of the penalty, setting the minimum within the range of the penalty next lower in degree and the maximum within the range of the imposable penalty.

Puno, Kapunan, Pardo, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ.