'Accused-appellants were charged and found guilty of illegal possession of dangerous drugs and illegal possession of dangerous drugs in a social gathering, which are penalized under Republic Act No. 9165 Article II, Sections 11 and 13, respectively.
Accused-appellants assert that the charge of the possession of illegal drugs is absorbed in the charge of possession of illegal drugs in social gatherings. Thus, charging and eventually convicting them of both offenses, separately, placed them in double jeopardy. We agree.
The constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy is provided in Article II, Section 21 of the Constitution:
No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.
This constitutional right is implemented in Rule 117, Section 7 of the Rules of Court which provides:
SECTION 7. Former conviction or acquittal; double jeopardy. — When an accused has been convicted or acquitted, or the case against him dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon a valid complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction and after the accused had pleaded to the charge, the conviction or acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case shall be a bar to another prosecution for the offense charged, or for any attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof, or for any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the former complaint or information. (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, the rule on double jeopardy protects the accused by prohibiting the state from charging or convicting a person of either the same offense or the same act. These two categories of double jeopardy is differentiated in People v. Quijada:43
Thirdly, our Bill of Rights deals with two (2) kinds of double jeopardy. The first sentence of clause 20, section 1, Article II I of the Constitution, ordains that “no person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense." (italics in the original) The second sentence of said clause provides that "if an act is punishable by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act." Thus, the first sentence prohibits double jeopardy of punishment for the same offense whereas, the second contemplates double jeopardy of punishment for the same act. Under the first sentence, one may be twice put in jeopardy of punishment of the same act, provided that he is charged with different offenses, or the offense charged in one case is not included in, or does not include, the crime charged in the other case. The second sentence applies, even if the offenses charged are not the same, owing to the fact that one constitutes a violation of an ordinance and the other a violation of a statute. If the two charges are based on one and the same act, conviction or acquittal under either the law or the ordinance shall bar a prosecution under the other. . . .
Elsewise stated, where the offenses charged are penalized either by different sections of the same statute or by different statutes, the important inquiry relates to the identity of offenses charged. The Constitutional protection against double jeopardy is available only where an identity is shown to exist between the earlier and the subsequent offenses charged. The question of identity or lack of identity of offenses is addressed by examining the essential elements of each of the two offenses charged, as such elements are set out in the respective legislative definitions of the offenses involved.44 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
The test of identity of offenses in ascertaining whether double jeopardy exists has been used by this Court as early as 1954 in People v. F. Diaz45 as cited in Ivler v. Modesto-San Pedro,46 thus:
In the case of People v. F Diaz, G.R. No. L-6518, prom. March 30, 1954, the accused was charged in the municipal court of Pasay City with reckless driving under sec. 52 of the Revised Motor Vehicle Law, for having driven an automobile in a 'fast and reckless manner . . . thereby causing an accident.' After the accused had pleaded not guilty the case was dismissed in that court 'for failure of the Government to prosecute'. But some time thereafter the city attorney filed an information in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, charging the same accused with damage to property thru reckless imprudence. The amount of the damage was alleged to be P249.50. Pleading double jeopardy, the accused filed a motion, and on appeal by the Government we affirmed the ruling. Among other things we there said through Mr. Justice Montemayor —
The next question to determine is the relation between the first offense of violation of the Motor Vehicle Law prosecuted before the Pasay City Municipal Court and the offense of damage to property thru reckless imprudence charged in the Rizal Court of First Instance. One of the tests of double jeopardy is whether or not the second offense charged necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the former complaint or information (Rule 113, Sec. 9). Another test is whether the evidence which proves one would prove the other that is to say whether the facts alleged in the first charge if proven, would have been sufficient to support the second charge and vice versa; or whether one crime is an ingredient of the other[.]47
Applying this, We now examine the elements of the two crimes charged against accused-appellants.
The elements for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 require: (1) the possession by the accused of an item or object identified to be a prohibited or dangerous drug; (2) that such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) that accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. On the other hand, Section 13 of the same law, requires the presence of the exact same elements with an addition of a fourth element: that the accused possessed the prohibited or dangerous drug during a social gathering or meeting, or in the company of at least two persons.48
Evidently, a charge for illegal possession in a social gathering absorbs one for illegal possession, as the former includes all the necessary elements in the latter. Petitioners correctly cited People v. Posada,49 which held that the sale of dangerous drugs absorbs the possession of it since all the elements of possession are inevitably integrated in its sale.
Since sale of dangerous drugs necessarily includes possession of the same, the accused-appellants should be convicted or possession. We have consistently ruled that possession of prohibited or dangerous drugs is absorbed in the sale thereof. Then Associate Justice Artemio Panganiban logically and clearly explained the rationale behind this ruling, to wit:
The prevailing doctrine is that possession of marijuana is absorbed in the sale thereof, except where the seller is further apprehended in possession of another quantity of the prohibited drugs not covered by or included in the sale and which are probably intended for some future dealings or use by the seller.
Possession is a necessary element in a prosecution for illegal sale of prohibited drugs. It is indispensable that the prohibited drug subject or the sale be identified and presented in court. That the corpus delicti of illegal sale could not be established without a showing that the accused possessed, sold and delivered a prohibited drug clearly indicates that possession is an element of the former. The same rule is applicable in cases of delivery of prohibited drugs and giving them away to another[.]50 (Citation omitted)
Here, just like in Posada, the violation of illegal possession of dangerous drugs is necessarily included in illegal possession of dangerous drugs in a social gathering. Thus, the prosecution erred when it filed separate informations for both charges, arguing that each charge pertain to separate and distinct sachets—a charge for illegal drugs in a social gathering for the clear plastic sachet found on the table, and another charge for possession of illegal drugs for the clear plastic sachets found in the pockets accused-appellants. The justification that the sachets found in the persons of accused-appellants were probably intended for some future dealing is purely conjecture and cannot stand.
Accordingly, charging and convicting the accused-appellants under Section 11, for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, and Section 13, for illegal possession of dangerous drugs in a social gathering, put them in double jeopardy.
As it stands, the acquittal of accused-appellants is in order. However, it is necessary to discuss the remaining issues regarding the conduct of the warrantless arrests, search and seizure, and observance of the chain of custody rule by the authorities for the guidance of bar and bench."
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JAMAL RANGAIG Y AMPUAN, SAAD MAKAIRING Y LONTO, AND MICHAEL JUGUILON Y SOLIS, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS,
G.R. No. 240447, April 28, 2021.
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/apr2021/gr_240447_2021.html
