In People v. Noque, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Joselito Noque for the illegal sale and possession of regulated drugs, despite the discrepancy between the substance named in the charge (methamphetamine hydrochloride or ‘shabu’) and the substance proven in court (ephedrine). The Court clarified that the critical factor was that both substances are regulated drugs, and the accused was adequately informed of the charges against him. This decision underscores that minor variances in the identification of specific drugs do not automatically lead to acquittal if the core offense involves regulated substances.

From Shabu to Ephedrine: Can a Drug Conviction Stand on a Technicality?

The case began with a buy-bust operation conducted by the Western Police District (WPD) in Manila, prompted by a tip about Joselito Noque’s drug trafficking activities. Police officers, acting on the tip, set up a sting operation. PO1 Balais, acting as the poseur-buyer, purchased two sachets of what he believed to be shabu from Noque using marked money. Subsequently, a search of Noque’s residence led to the discovery of a larger quantity of a crystalline substance. Both the purchased sachets and the larger quantity were seized and submitted for forensic analysis.

The forensic examination revealed that the seized substances were not methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) as initially suspected, but rather ephedrine, another regulated drug. This discrepancy formed the crux of Noque’s appeal, where he argued that his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him was violated. He contended that being charged with selling and possessing shabu, while the evidence proved the sale and possession of ephedrine, prejudiced his defense.

The trial court, however, found Noque guilty, reasoning that ephedrine is a precursor to methamphetamine and that the offenses charged were included in the crimes proved. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this decision, emphasizing that the Informations referred to the illegal sale and possession of regulated drugs and that ephedrine is indeed a regulated drug. The Supreme Court then took up the case to resolve the issue of whether the variance between the drug named in the charge and the drug proven at trial warranted an acquittal.

The Supreme Court upheld Noque’s conviction, reinforcing the principle that the essence of the crime lies in the illegal sale and possession of a regulated drug, regardless of the specific substance. The Court stated that the prosecution successfully proved both the illegal sale and illegal possession, satisfying all the necessary elements. For illegal sale, the elements are: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. The Court found that these elements were met when PO1 Balais purchased the substance from Noque using marked money.

Similarly, the elements of illegal possession of a dangerous drug are: (1) the accused was in possession of an item or object identified as a prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug. The Court noted that Noque failed to provide any explanation for his possession of the ephedrine or any authorization to possess it.

The Court also addressed Noque’s claim that his right to be informed of the charges against him was violated. It referenced Sections 4 and 5, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court, which provide for judgments in cases of variance between allegation and proof. Section 4 of Rule 120 states:

Sec. 4. Judgment in case of variance between allegation and proof. – When there is a variance between the offense charged in the complaint or information, and that proved, and the offense charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused shall be convicted of the offense proved which is included in the offense charged, or of the offense charged which is included in the offense proved.

And Section 5 of Rule 120 states:

Sec. 5. When an offense includes or is included in another. – 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. An offense charged is necessarily included in the offense proved, when the essential ingredients of the former constitute or form part of those constituting the latter.

The Court reasoned that because the Informations charged Noque with violating Sections 15 and 16 of RA 6425, which penalize the illegal sale and possession of regulated drugs, and because ephedrine is classified as a regulated drug, Noque was sufficiently informed of the nature of the accusations against him. The qualifying phrase “which is a regulated drug” following the mention of “shabu” in the Informations was critical to this determination.

The Court emphasized that a minor variance between the information and the evidence does not alter the nature of the offense or the penalty. The right to be informed of the charges is not violated when an accused is charged with a specific crime and is thereby informed of lesser included offenses. Furthermore, there was no evidence presented suggesting that the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation were motivated by ill will or a desire to falsely accuse Noque. The Court reiterated the principle that where there is no evidence of improper motive, the testimony of prosecution witnesses is entitled to full faith and credit.

In terms of the penalties imposed, the Court affirmed the CA’s modification of the penalty in Criminal Case No. 01-189458, sentencing Noque to an indeterminate penalty of six months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two years, four months, and one day of prision correccional, as maximum, for the illegal sale of 2.754 grams of ephedrine. For Criminal Case No. 01-189459, the Court upheld the penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine of P500,000.00 for the illegal possession of 339.6075 grams of ephedrine.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether Joselito Noque’s conviction for drug offenses could stand despite the discrepancy between the drug named in the charge (methamphetamine hydrochloride) and the drug proven in court (ephedrine). The Supreme Court had to determine if this variance violated Noque’s right to be informed of the accusations against him.
What is the significance of ephedrine in relation to methamphetamine?	Ephedrine is a regulated drug and an important precursor used in the clandestine synthesis of methamphetamine. The chemical structures of ephedrine and methamphetamine are very similar, with the main difference being the presence of an oxygen atom in ephedrine.
What is a “buy-bust” operation?	A buy-bust operation is a common law enforcement technique used to apprehend individuals engaged in the illegal sale of drugs. It involves police officers posing as buyers to purchase drugs from suspects, leading to their arrest.
What are the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs?	The elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs are: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. These elements must be proven beyond reasonable doubt to secure a conviction.
What are the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs?	The elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs are: (1) the accused was in possession of an item or object identified as a prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug.
How did the court address the discrepancy in drug identification?	The Court reasoned that because both substances are regulated drugs and the Informations specified violations of laws pertaining to regulated drugs, the discrepancy was not fatal. It applied the principle that a variance is immaterial if the accused is informed of the nature of the charges.
What is the role of the Dangerous Drugs Board?	The Dangerous Drugs Board is the policy-making and coordinating body for drug prevention and control in the Philippines. It classifies substances as regulated or prohibited drugs and issues regulations related to drug control.
What are Sections 4 and 5, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court?	These sections pertain to judgments in cases of variance between the offense charged and the offense proved. They allow for conviction of the offense proved if it is included in the offense charged, or vice versa, ensuring justice is served despite technical discrepancies.

The People v. Noque case reinforces the importance of upholding drug laws to protect society from the harmful effects of illegal drugs. While technicalities in legal proceedings are important, the Supreme Court’s decision emphasizes that substance and intent should prevail when the accused is clearly involved in drug-related activities and is fully aware of the charges against them.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. JOSELITO NOQUE Y GOMEZ, APPELLANT., G.R. No. 175319, January 15, 2010