PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. WINIFRED DAVID @ “BUTCH”, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

In our decision promulgated on 1 March 1994, we affirmed in toto the decision of Branch 57
of the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City in Criminal Case No. 12502 which
found the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the violation of
Section 4, Article II of R.A. No. 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs
Act of 1972, as amended, and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of life
imprisonment and to pay a fine of P20, 000.00.

On 29 March 1994, the accused-appellant filed a Motion for
Reconsideration and/or New Trial wherein he alleges that the trial court failed
to give evidentiary value to the fact that he is an “unwashed and
unlettered” wood carver who was merely induced by the NARCOM agents to
commit the crime, and as ground for a new trial, he insists on the alleged
newly discovered evidence which he already extensively discussed in the
Appellant’s Brief.

In its Manifestation on the Motion filed on 7 July 1994, the
Office of the Solicitor General reiterates its position in the Brief for the
Appellee that the prosecution overwhelmingly established the guilt of the
appellant for the crime charged and that he should not be allowed to change his
theory or raise new issues on appeal; however, it interposes no objection to
the motion for new trial “in the interest of substantial justice.”

Notwithstanding the softening of the heart of the Office of the
Solicitor General, this Court cannot grant the motion for new trial.

The alleged newly discovered evidence refers to the
“inducement” theory and consists of the information conveyed to
counsel by the wife of the appellant that the latter had confessed to her that
he was merely instructed and induced to go to a certain person to buy
marijuana, which he did. According to
counsel, this evidence could not have been offered during the trial because the
wife disclosed it only after the promulgation. In the challenged decision, we exposed the utter lack of merit of this
claim. In the first place, the alleged
newly discovered evidence would change the theory of the appellant from a mere
denial with an affirmative claim of planting of evidence to inducement. In the second place, the requisites of a new
trial are not present. Finally, the
testimony sought to be offered would be hearsay.

Since the motion then offers nothing new, its denial is
inevitable.

However, the penalty imposed on the accused should be modified in
view of the new amendments introduced by R.A. No. 7659^[1] to
Section 4, Article II, and Section 20, Article IV of R.A. No 6425, as
amended. R.A. No. 7659 was approved on
13 December 1993 and took effect on 31 December 1993. As thus further amended, the penalty prescribed in Section 4 was
changed from “life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from twenty
thousand to thirty thousand pesos” to “reclusion perpetua to
death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million
pesos.” However, pursuant to Section 17 of R.A. No. 7659, which amends
Section 20 of R.A. No. 6425, the new penalty shall be applied if the quantity
of the dangerous drugs involved falls within the first paragraph of the amended
Section 20, and if the quantity would be lower than those specified in said
first paragraph, the penalty shall be from “prision correccional to
reclusion perpetua.” The pertinent portion of the amended Section
20 reads as follows:

“SEC. 20. Application
of Penalties, Confiscation and Forfeiture of the Proceeds or Instrument of the
Crime. — The penalties for offenses under Section 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of
Article II and Sections 14, 14-A, 15 and 16 of Article III of this Act shall be
applied if the dangerous drugs involved is in any of the following quantities:

x x x

5. 750 grams or more of
indian hemp or marijuana;

x x x

Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing
quantities, the penalty shall range from prision correccional to reclusion
perpetua depending upon the quantity.”

The penalty then in Section 4 is now
based on the quantity of the prohibited drugs involved, except where the victim
is a minor or where the prohibited drug involved in any offense under Section 4
is the proximate cause of the death of the victim, in which case the maximum
penalty prescribed in Section 4 shall be imposed regardless of the quantity of
the prohibited drugs involved.^[2]

In People vs. Martin
Simon y Sunga,^[3] decided on 29 July 1994, this Court
ruled as follows:

(1)   
Provisions of R.A. No.
7659 which are favorable to the accused shall be given retroactive effect
pursuant to Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code.

(2)   
Where the quantity of
the dangerous drug involved is less than the quantities stated in the first
paragraph of Section 20 of R.A. No. 6425, the penalty to be imposed shall range
from prision correccional to reclusion temporal, and not reclusion
perpetua. The reason is that there
is an overlapping error, probably through oversight in the drafting, in the
provisions on the penalty of reclusion perpetua as shown by its dual
imposition, i.e., as the minimum of the penalty where the quantity of
the dangerous drugs involved is more than those specified in the first
paragraph of the amended Section 20 and also as the maximum of the penalty
where the quantity of the dangerous drugs involved is less than those so
specified in the first paragraph.

(3)   
Considering that the
aforesaid penalty of prision correccional to reclusion temporal shall
depend upon the quantity of the dangerous drugs involved, each of the component
penalties thereof — prision correccional, prision mayor, and reclusion
temporal — shall be considered as a principal imposable penalty depending
on the quantity, such that the quantity of the drugs enumerated in the second
paragraph should then be divided into three, with the resulting quotient, and
double or treble the same, as the bases for determining the appropriate
component penalty.

(4)   
The modifying
circumstances in the Revised Penal Code may be appreciated to determine the
proper period of the corresponding imposable penalty or even to effect its
reduction by one or more degrees; provided, however, that in no case should
such graduation of penalties reduce the imposable penalty lower than prision
correccional.

(5)   
In appropriate
instances, the Indeterminate Sentence Law shall be applied and considering that
R.A. No. 7659 has unqualifiedly adopted the penalties under the Revised Penal
Code with their technical signification and effects, then the crimes under the
Dangerous Drugs Act shall now be considered as crimes punished by the Revised
Penal Code; hence, pursuant to Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the
indeterminate penalty which may be imposed shall be one whose maximum shall be
within the range of the imposable penalty and whose minimum shall be within the
range of the penalty next lower in degree to the imposable penalty.

With the foregoing as our touchstones and taking into account the
quantity of marijuana involved in this case, the second paragraph of Section 20
of R.A. No. 6425, as further amended by Section 17 of R.A. No. 7659, is
applicable and the proper imposable penalty would be prision correccional.

Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the accused may then be sentenced
to suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from six (6) months of arresto
mayor as minimum to six (6) years of prision correccional as
maximum. We should then set aside the
dispositive portion of our decision of 1 March 1994 and enter a new one.

WHEREFORE, the challenged decision of Branch 57 of the
Regional Trial Court of Angeles City in Criminal Case No. 12502 is hereby
AFFIRMED, subject to the modification of the penalty. Accused WINIFRED DAVID @ “BUTCH”
is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from Six (6)
months of arresto mayor as minimum to Six (6) years of prision
correccional as maximum.

Costs against the accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Bellosillo, Quiason, and
Kapunan, JJ., concur.

Cruz, J., (Chairman), on official
leave.

^[1]
“An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes, Amending
for that Purpose the Revised Penal Code, as Amended, Other Special Laws, and
for Other Purposes.”

^[2]
Section 4, second paragraph, as amended by R.A. No. 7659. See also Section 5, second and third
paragraphs; Section 15, second paragraph; and Section 15-a, second and third
paragraphs, as amended by R.A. No. 7659.

^[3]
G.R. No. 93028.