G.R. No. 137491 ; November 23, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. VICENTE FLORES y MONDRAGON, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Vicente Flores y Mondragon was charged with violating Section 9, Article II of R.A. 6425 (The Dangerous Drugs Act), as amended, for planting and cultivating 230 grams of marijuana. Upon arraignment, he pleaded guilty. The Regional Trial Court, after conducting an inquiry into the voluntariness of his plea, rendered a judgment finding him guilty. The court appreciated the mitigating circumstance of a plea of guilty and imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos.
Accused-appellant filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that based on the quantity of marijuana involved (230 grams) and pursuant to the amendments under R.A. 7659 and the ruling in People v. Simon, the imposable penalty should be significantly lower and no fine should be imposed. The trial court denied his motion. He appealed, contending that the trial court erred in imposing reclusion perpetua and the fine, and in allegedly not following the proper procedure for a plea to a capital offense under the Rules of Court.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the trial court correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine for the cultivation of 230 grams of marijuana.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision. Applying the doctrine in People v. Simon, the Court held that for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act involving marijuana, the penalty must be determined based on the quantity of the drug. Section 9 of R.A. 6425, as amended by Section 17 of R.A. 7659, provides a penalty of reclusion perpetua to death for cultivation. However, Section 20 of the same Act, as amended, provides a graduated scale of penalties based on the quantity of the prohibited drug. For 230 grams of marijuana, which is less than 250 grams, the offense is punishable by prision correccional. Therefore, the trial court erred in imposing reclusion perpetua. The proper penalty is an indeterminate sentence ranging from four months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two years, four months, and one day of prision correccional, as maximum. Consequently, the fine is also deleted, as it is a conjunctive penalty only when the penalty is reclusion perpetua to death. Regarding the procedural issue, the Court ruled that the offense, after applying the correct penalty scale, is non-capital. Thus, the stricter procedure under Section 3, Rule 116 for capital offenses was not mandatory. The trial court’s inquiry into the voluntariness of the plea was sufficient. The accused-appellant was ordered released, having already served more than the maximum penalty imposed.