People vs. Manansala

An accused charged with illegal sale of prohibited drugs under Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6425 may be validly convicted of illegal possession of the same drugs under Section 8, because possession is an essential element of and necessarily included in the offense of illegal sale, provided the information alleges facts constituting possession and the drugs involved are the very same subject of the charge.

In October 1994, the Philippine National Police in Olongapo City targeted Chad Manansala y Lagman as a suspected marijuana dealer. A test-buy operation on October 18, 1994 led to the procurement of a search warrant for his residence. The search conducted the following morning uncovered 750 grams of dried marijuana leaves. Manansala was charged with illegal sale of marijuana, but the prosecution later moved to amend the information to illegal possession, a motion the trial court never acted upon. The Regional Trial Court convicted him of illegal possession, and the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification. Manansala elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that conviction for an offense not expressly charged violated his constitutional right to be informed of the accusation.

• The Test-Buy and Search Warrant: On October 18, 1994, the Olongapo City PNP conducted a test-buy operation against Manansala, a suspected marijuana dealer. On the basis of the test-buy, the PNP applied for and obtained Search Warrant No. 8-94 from RTC, Branch 72, Olongapo City, authorizing the search for and seizure of prohibited drugs at Manansala's residence on Johnson Extension, Barangay East Bajac Bajac.
• Search and Seizure: At approximately 5:30 a.m. on October 19, 1994, SPO4 Felipe P. Bolina and other PNP elements, accompanied by Barangay Chairman Reynaldo Manalang, executed the search warrant. The search yielded 750 grams of dried marijuana leaves recovered from a wooden box inside a cabinet, together with ₱655.00 in cash that included the two marked ₱50.00 bills bearing serial numbers SNKJ812018 and SNMN426747 used during the test-buy.
• Inventory and Custody: The seized articles were inventoried, and Manansala himself signed the certification, along with his father Jose Manansala and Barangay Captain Manalang. The certification listed approximately one kilo of suspected dried marijuana leaves, rolling paper, and the money. Manansala was brought to Camp Cabal in Olongapo City, and the seized articles were turned over to evidence custodian SPO2 Marcelino R. Sapad.
• Laboratory Examination: At around 8:20 a.m. on October 20, 1994, the seized specimens were submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory in Camp Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga. Technical Report No. D-396-94 confirmed that the specimens—two rectangular bricks of dried suspected marijuana fruiting tops weighing a total of 755 grams and another plastic bag containing 9.045 grams—tested positive for marijuana, a prohibited drug.
• Prosecution's Move to Amend: On January 4, 1995, First Assistant City Prosecutor Mario F. Manalansan filed a motion for the admission of an amended information, seeking to change the charge from illegal sale under Section 4 to illegal possession under Section 8. In a letter dated December 28, 1994 to the City Prosecutor, Prosecutor Manalansan explained that the sale on October 18, 1994 and the seizure on October 19, 1994 were separate incidents giving rise to two distinct offenses, and that the evidence could not prove that the 750 grams seized were connected to the sale. The RTC did not act on the motion.
• Defense of Frame-Up: Manansala denied the charge and claimed he was a victim of a frame-up. He testified that on October 19, 1994, military men in civilian attire arrested him without a warrant, brought him to an office referred to as S2 and then to a club known as Dorris 2 on Magsaysay Street in Olongapo City, where he was mugged and detained when he refused to admit the sale and possession of marijuana. His request to be brought to a hospital for treatment of his injuries was denied. He conceded he could not identify his captors except for SPO4 Bolina, whom he recognized in court.
• Trial Court's Finding: The RTC found that the prosecution failed to prove the illegal sale because the poseur-buyer was not presented as a witness, making the testimony of SPO4 Bolina about the test-buy hearsay. Nonetheless, the RTC held that the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt that Manansala had custody, possession, and control of the marijuana seized during the search. It convicted him of illegal possession under Section 8 as a crime necessarily included in the illegal sale charged.

• Invalidity of Search Warrant: Petitioner argued that the conviction was anchored on evidence procured by virtue of an invalid warrant, rendering the seized marijuana inadmissible.
• Violation of Right to be Informed: Petitioner maintained that the RTC erred in convicting him for illegal possession under Section 8 when the information expressly charged only illegal sale under Section 4. He contended that illegal possession is not necessarily included in illegal sale such that the conviction under the information as filed violated his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.
• Misappreciation of Evidence: Petitioner asserted that the RTC overlooked, misinterpreted, and misapplied facts and evidence of substance and importance that, if properly weighed and considered, were sufficient to acquit him.

• Validity of Search and Seizure: The People maintained that the search warrant was validly issued and executed, and that the evidence obtained was admissible.
• Conviction for Included Offense Proper: The People argued that the information for illegal sale sufficiently alleged that Manansala had possession and control of the 750 grams of marijuana, and that under established jurisprudence, illegal possession is an essential element necessarily included in and absorbed by the crime of illegal sale. Convicting him of the lesser offense under Section 8 did not violate his constitutional right.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: The People contended that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Manansala was in unauthorized possession of the prohibited drug, as established by the positive testimony of the police officers and the presentation of the corpus delicti.

• Validity of Search Warrant: Whether the search warrant was invalid, thereby rendering the seized marijuana inadmissible as evidence.
• Right to be Informed (Included Offense): Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused of illegal possession of marijuana under Section 8, Republic Act No. 6425, when the information charged only illegal sale under Section 4, thus violating his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.
• Misappreciation of Evidence: Whether the RTC overlooked or misinterpreted material facts and evidence that, properly weighed, would have warranted acquittal.

• Validity of Search Warrant: The Supreme Court found no reversible error in the CA's affirmance of the conviction. The validity of the search warrant and the admissibility of the seized evidence were not independently discussed; the appeal was resolved on the primary ground of variance between the offense charged and the offense proved.
• Right to be Informed (Included Offense): The conviction for illegal possession was proper and did not violate the right to be informed. The information expressly alleged that the 750 grams of dried marijuana leaves were "found in his possession and control," thereby giving the accused sufficient notice that he was being held to account for possession. Under the doctrine established in People v. Lacerna, illegal possession of prohibited drugs is an essential element of and is necessarily included in the offense of illegal sale, because sale cannot be proven without seizure and identification of the prohibited drug—possession is a condition sine qua non. The variance between the offense charged and the offense proved was governed by Section 5, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court (1985), under which an offense charged necessarily includes the offense proved when some of the essential elements of the former, as alleged in the information, constitute the latter. Because the same marijuana was the subject of both the charged sale and the proved possession, the illegal sale absorbed the illegal possession. The prosecution's acknowledgment that the 750 grams was distinct from the test-buy incident did not alter the conclusion; the information as filed was the controlling document, and no amended information was ever admitted. Where only the prohibited drugs alleged in the information as the subject of the illegal sale are involved, the illegal possession is deemed absorbed; separate quantities found in the accused's possession that are not part of the sale should be prosecuted under a distinct information, but that circumstance did not obtain here.
• Misappreciation of Evidence: This issue was not separately addressed. By affirming the CA decision in its entirety, the Supreme Court effectively sustained the lower courts' appreciation of the evidence and the finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

• Doctrine of Absorption of Illegal Possession in Illegal Sale — In prosecutions for illegal sale of prohibited drugs, illegal possession of the same drugs is deemed absorbed by the sale, except where the seller is also found in possession of another quantity of prohibited drugs not covered by or included in the sale and intended for future dealings or use. Possession is a condition sine qua non for illegal sale; thus, an accused charged with illegal sale may be validly convicted of illegal possession when the evidence fails to establish the sale but proves possession beyond reasonable doubt. The rule ensures that the same prohibited drugs are the competent evidence for both the charged and proved offenses; any other illegal substance found should be the subject of a separate information.
• Elements of Illegal Possession of Prohibited Drugs — The elements are: (a) the accused is in possession of an item or object identified as a prohibited drug; (b) such possession is not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the prohibited drug.
• Variance Rule Under Section 5, Rule 120, Rules of Court — When there is a variance between the offense charged in the complaint or information and that proved by the evidence, and the offense as charged necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused shall be convicted of the offense proved included in that which is charged. An offense charged necessarily includes the offense proved when some of the essential elements or ingredients of the former, as alleged in the complaint or information, constitute the latter.

• "The due recognition of the constitutional right of an accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation through the criminal complaint or information is decisive of whether his prosecution for a crime stands or not. The right is not transgressed if the information sufficiently alleges facts and omissions constituting an offense that includes the offense established to have been committed by the accused."
• "It being established that illegal possession is an element of and is necessarily included in the illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the Court will thus determine appellant’s culpability under Section 8." (quoting People v. Lacerna)
• "The rule is that when there is a variance between the offense charged in the complaint or information, and that proved or established by the evidence, and the offense as charged necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused shall be convicted of the offense proved included in that which is charged."

• People v. Lacerna, G.R. No. 109250, September 5, 1997, 278 SCRA 561 — Controlling precedent; followed to affirm the doctrine that illegal sale of marijuana absorbs illegal possession, that possession is an essential element of illegal sale, and that an accused charged with the former may be convicted of the latter. The case also enumerated the elements of illegal possession.
• People v. Manzano — Cited within Lacerna to establish the elements of illegal sale of prohibited drugs. No independent citation provided in the decision.

• Section 4, Article II, Republic Act No. 6425 (as amended by R.A. No. 7659) — Defined and penalized the illegal sale, administration, delivery, distribution, and transportation of prohibited drugs. The information was framed under this provision, but the evidence adduced at trial failed to prove the element of sale because the poseur-buyer was not presented.
• Section 8, Article II, Republic Act No. 6425 (as amended by R.A. No. 7659) — Defined and penalized the illegal possession or use of prohibited drugs. The accused was properly convicted under this provision as an offense necessarily included in the illegal sale charged, the evidence having established all elements of illegal possession.
• Section 14(2), Article III, 1987 Constitution — Guarantees the right of an accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. The Court ruled that the right was not violated because the information alleged facts constituting possession, thereby giving sufficient notice.
• Section 4 and 5, Rule 120, Rules of Court (1985) — Governed judgment in case of variance between allegation and proof. Section 5 provides the rule that an offense charged necessarily includes the offense proved when some essential elements of the former constitute the latter; applied to justify conviction for illegal possession under an information for illegal sale.

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr., and Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes concurred.