Scribd
Upload
282 views2 pages

PEOPLE Vs Macasling Digest

1. The appellant was convicted of selling 50 grams of shabu, a street name for metamphetamine hydrochloride, which is a regulated drug under Philippine law. 2. The appellant claimed he could not be convicted because shabu is not explicitly listed under the Dangerous Drugs Act, but the court ruled that shabu refers to a regulated drug. 3. The appellant also claimed his arrest was unlawful since it was without a warrant, but the court found the arrest was the result of a lawful entrapment operation based on a pre-arranged drug transaction. The court upheld the appellant's conviction.

Uploaded by

William Azucena
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
282 views2 pages

PEOPLE Vs Macasling Digest

1. The appellant was convicted of selling 50 grams of shabu, a street name for metamphetamine hydrochloride, which is a regulated drug under Philippine law. 2. The appellant claimed he could not be convicted because shabu is not explicitly listed under the Dangerous Drugs Act, but the court ruled that shabu refers to a regulated drug. 3. The appellant also claimed his arrest was unlawful since it was without a warrant, but the court found the arrest was the result of a lawful entrapment operation based on a pre-arranged drug transaction. The court upheld the appellant's conviction.

Uploaded by

William Azucena
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

People v.

Macasling

Prohibited vs. Regulated drug.


Facts:
on 19 August 1988, at about 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon, Lt. Manuel Obrera, Chief of the Narcotics and
Intelligence Division, Integrated National Police ("INP"), Baguio City, received a telephone call from the Chief of the
Narcotics Command ("Narcom"), First Regional Unit, INP. The latter sought the assistance of Lt. Obrera in the
apprehension of appellant who, according to the Narcom Chief, would be delivering shabu at Room No. 77 of the
Hyatt Terraces Hotel in Baguio City, on that same afternoon.
There they were met by the Narcom Chief who informed them that appellant Macasling had previously agreed
with a Chinese businessman in Las Piñas, Metro Manila, that appellant would deliver about 250 grams of shabu at
Room No. 77 of the Hyatt Terraces Hotel.
During the entrapment operation inside Room 77, appellant handed over a small package with a wrapper marked
"Happy Days" which, upon being opened by the arresting of􀁄cers, was found to contain about 50 grams of
crystalline granules.
Contentions:
The appellant cannot be convicted of the offense charged in the information considering that shabu — the term
used in the information — is not a dangerous drug, since it is not one of those enumerated as such in R.A. No. 6425
(The Dangerous Drugs Act).
Appellant's next contention is that because he was not lawfully arrested, the package with a "Happy Days"
wrapper containing 50 grams of shabu, taken from him was inadmissible in evidence. Appellant's claim that he was
unlawfully arrested is anchored on the fact that the arresting officers had neither warrant of arrest nor a search
warrant.
Issue:
1. Whether the term accused cannot be convicted as the term shabu is not one of those enumerated under the
Dangerous Drug Act.
2. Whether the accused had been deprived of his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him.
3. Whether the accused was unlawfully arrested and thus the package containing shabu is inadmissible evidence.
Ruling:
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court Baguio City, in Criminal Case No. 5936-R is hereby AFFIRMED
in toto.
1. No. This Court has in fact taken judicial notice that shabu is a "street name" for metamphetamine hydrochloride
(or "methyl amphetamine hydrochloride"). Considering the chemical composition of shabu, the Court has declared
that shabu is a derivative of a regulated drug, the possession, sale, transportation, etc. of which is subject to the
provisions of R.A. No. 6425 as amended. It remains only to point out that, in the case at bar, the laboratory
examination conducted on the crystalline granules recovered from appellant in fact yielded the compound
metamphetamine hydrochloride. The use in the criminal information of the casual or vulgar term shabu rather
than the scienti􀁄c term metamphetamine hydrochloride, does not affect the legal responsibility of appellant under
the relevant provisions of R.A. No. 6425 as amended.
2. No. THE RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION AGAINST THE ACCUSED; THE
ACTS WITH WHICH THE ACCUSED WAS CHARGED ARE PLAINLY SET OUT IN THE OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE
CRIMINAL INFORMATION. — Appellant's contention that he had been deprived of his right to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against him, is bereft of merit. The acts with which he was charged are quite
plainly set out in the operative portion of the criminal information: that appellant "did — willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously sell, deliver, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport 50 grams of shabu , knowing fully well that said
shabu [is] a prohibited drug . . .". We agree with the trial court that the use of the term "prohibited drug" was
merely a conclusion of law, something which is for the Court to determine; in the circumstances of this case, the
inaccurate use of the term "prohibited drug" was also merely a falsa descriptio.
Despite the mistaken designation of the offense there would not be a change in the offense charged for as recited
in the body of the Information, what is charged is still the sale, transport or delivery of 50 grams of shabu. That is
the one important. Only the designation of the offense was a mistake from regulated drug to prohibited drug
which is a conclusion of law. This would not violate the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against him. As in fact, the accused is still informed of the offense charged, that
is, the unlawful transport, sale or delivery of 50 grams of shabu.
3. No. ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT; ENTRAPMENT; THE WARRANTLESS ARREST OF APPELLANT WAS MERELY THE
CULMINATION OF AN ENTRAPMENT OPERATION. — Appellant's next contention is that because he was no lawfully
arrested, the package with a "Happy Days" wrapper containing 50 grams of shabu, taken from him was
inadmissible in evidence. Appellant's claim that he was unlawfully arrested is anchored on the fact that the
arresting of􀁄cers had neither warrant of arrest nor a search warrant. The basic dif􀁄culty with appellant's
contention is that it totally disregards the antecedents of the arrest of appellant inside Room No. 77 of the Hyatt
Terraces Hotel. It will be recalled that the arresting of􀁄cers had been informed by the Chief of the Narcom Regional
Of􀁄ce that a transaction had been agreed upon by appellant in Las Piñas, Metro Manila, involving delivery of
shabu, which delivery was, however, to take place in Room No. 77 at the Hyatt Terraces Hotel in Baguio City. Only
appellant with Editha Gagarin and the undercover Narcom agent showed up at Room No. 77 at the Hyatt Terraces
Hotel and the Narcom undercover agent had signalled that appellant had with him the shabu. The reception
prepared by the arresting of􀁄cers for appellant inside Room No. 77 was in fact an entrapment operation. The sale
of the shabu (understood as the meeting of the minds of seller and buyer) did not, of course, take place in the
presence of the arresting officers. The delivery or attempted delivery of the subject matter did, however, take
place in their presence.
EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY OF WITNESS; THE APPRAISAL BY THE TRIAL COURT OF THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESSES
IS ENTITLED TO GREAT RESPECT FROM APPELLATE COURTS. — The trial court was not persuaded by appellant's
elaborate disclaimer of knowledge about the shabu, 􀁄nding such disclaimer as contrived and improbable and not
worthy of credence. The rule, of course, is that testimony to be believed must not only originate from a credible
witness, but must also itself be credible. We see no reason, and we have been pointed to none, why the Court
should overturn the appraisal of the trial court of the credibility (or rather lack of credibility) of the long story
offered by appellant. We 􀁄nd no basis for departing from the basic rule that the appraisal by the trial court of the
credibility of witnesses who appeared before it is entitled to great respect from appellate courts who do not deal
with live witnesses but only with the cold pages of a written record.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy