The Supreme Court has definitively ruled that possessing both shabu (methamphetamine hydrochloride) and marijuana constitutes two distinct criminal offenses under Republic Act No. 6425, also known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. This means that an individual found in possession of both substances can be charged with two separate Informations, and the prosecution cannot be compelled to combine these charges into a single case. This decision reinforces the distinct penalties and treatment for different types of dangerous drugs under Philippine law. It ensures that offenders face appropriate consequences for each substance they illegally possess, recognizing the varying degrees of harm associated with different drugs.

One Bust, Two Crimes: Delineating Drug Possession Under R.A. 6425

The case of People v. Hon. Marcial G. Empleo and Dante Mah y Cabilin arose from a search warrant executed at the residence of Dante Mah, where police officers discovered both shabu and marijuana. Consequently, two separate Informations were filed against Mah, one for violating Section 16, Article III (possession of shabu) and another for violating Section 8, Article II (possession of marijuana) of R.A. 6425. The trial court, however, directed the prosecutor to amend the Informations and file only one, arguing that the simultaneous possession of both substances constituted a single criminal act. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, prompting the People of the Philippines to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court.

At the heart of the legal debate was whether the simultaneous possession of different types of illegal drugs constitutes separate offenses, warranting individual charges for each. The Supreme Court addressed this by closely examining the intent and structure of R.A. 6425. The Supreme Court emphasized that R.A. 6425 specifies different penalties for different drugs and quantities. The Court argued that the Court of Appeals’ interpretation diluted the severity of the crimes committed and disregarded the Legislature’s clear intent to treat different drugs distinctly. To fully understand the Supreme Court’s decision, it’s essential to delve into the specifics of R.A. 6425.

R.A. 6425, as amended, clearly distinguishes between prohibited and regulated drugs, prescribing varying penalties for their possession and use. Section 8 of Article II pertains to prohibited drugs like marijuana, while Section 16 of Article III addresses regulated drugs such as shabu. The penalties for violations of these sections depend on the type and quantity of the drug involved. The Supreme Court pointed out that the law does not prescribe a single, uniform punishment for all offenses related to dangerous drugs. Instead, it meticulously enumerates punishable acts and their corresponding penalties, with specific attention to the type and quantity of the drug.

The Court also highlighted that the minimum quantities for imposing maximum penalties differ significantly between marijuana and shabu, underscoring the legislative intent to treat these drugs differently. For marijuana, the quantity must be 750 grams or more, whereas for shabu, it is 200 grams or more. The filing of two separate Informations was, therefore, deemed correct. The Supreme Court referenced the case of People v. Tira to further support its position.

In People v. Tira, the accused were found in possession of both shabu and marijuana. The Supreme Court ruled that this constituted two separate crimes: possession of regulated drugs (shabu) under Section 16 and possession of prohibited drugs (marijuana) under Section 8 of R.A. 6425. The Court stated:

We find and so hold that the appellants are guilty of two separate crimes: (a) possession of regulated drugs under Section 16, in relation to Section 20, of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended, for their possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated drug; and, (b) violation of Section 8, in relation to Section 20 of the law, for their possession of marijuana, a prohibited drug.

The Court acknowledged that the single Information filed in Tira was technically defective because it charged two crimes. However, because the accused failed to object before arraignment, they could be convicted of both crimes alleged and proven. This ruling in Tira served as a strong precedent for the Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Empleo, reinforcing the principle that illegal possession of shabu and marijuana are distinct offenses.

The Court underscored that to combine these offenses into a single charge of “possession of dangerous drugs” would undermine the specific penalties and distinctions established by the Legislature. Each drug carries its own set of consequences, and combining them would obscure the individual severity of each offense. Multiple offenses can be committed under RA 6425 even if the crimes are committed in the same place, at the same time, and by the same person. This reaffirms the legal principle that each distinct violation of the law should be treated as a separate offense, even if they occur concurrently.

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether possessing both shabu and marijuana at the same time constitutes one or two separate offenses under R.A. 6425.
What did the Supreme Court rule?	The Supreme Court ruled that possessing shabu and marijuana are two separate offenses, requiring separate Informations for each.
Why did the Court make this decision?	The Court emphasized that R.A. 6425 specifies different penalties for different drugs, indicating a legislative intent to treat them as distinct offenses.
What is the significance of People v. Tira?	People v. Tira established a precedent that possessing shabu and marijuana are separate crimes, reinforcing the decision in this case.
What happens if only one Information is filed for both offenses?	While technically defective, the accused can still be convicted of both crimes if they fail to object to the Information before arraignment.
Does the location and timing of the offenses matter?	No, multiple offenses can be committed under R.A. 6425 even if the crimes are committed in the same place, at the same time, and by the same person.
What is the role of the prosecutor in these cases?	The prosecutor must file separate Informations for each distinct violation of R.A. 6425 to ensure appropriate penalties are applied.
What is the effect of this ruling on drug offenders?	Drug offenders possessing multiple types of illegal drugs face potentially more severe penalties due to the separate charges for each substance.

The Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Hon. Marcial G. Empleo and Dante Mah y Cabilin clarifies the distinct nature of drug-related offenses under Philippine law. This ruling ensures that individuals found in possession of different types of illegal drugs face appropriate and separate charges for each, aligning with the legislative intent behind R.A. 6425. It reinforces the principle that each distinct violation of the law should be treated as a separate offense, even if they occur concurrently.

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 vs. Hon. Marcial G. Empleo and Dante Mah y Cabilin, G.R. No. 148547, September 27, 2006