G.R. No. 148547 ; September 27, 2006
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. MARCIAL G. EMPLEO and DANTE MAH y CABILIN, respondents.

FACTS

On October 6, 1999, police officers, pursuant to a search warrant, seized from the room of private respondent Dante Mah at the LS Lodge in Dipolog City several items: thirty-two small and six big plastic sachets of shabu (totaling 6.4 grams), one roll of dried marijuana leaves (0.2 gram), and another small sachet of shabu (0.05 gram). Consequently, the prosecution filed two separate Informations before the Regional Trial Court: Criminal Case No. 9272 for violation of Section 16, Article III of R.A. No. 6425 (possession of shabu) and Criminal Case No. 9279 for violation of Section 8, Article II of the same law (possession of marijuana).
Private respondent filed a motion to dismiss Criminal Case No. 9279, arguing that the simultaneous possession of different drugs constituted a single act, and filing two Informations amounted to an improper splitting of a single cause of action. The trial court, presided by Judge Marcial G. Empleo, agreed and directed the prosecutor to amend the two Informations into a single one. The Court of Appeals affirmed this ruling, prompting the People to elevate the case via a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the simultaneous possession of shabu and marijuana, seized in a single search operation, constitutes one offense or two separate offenses under Republic Act No. 6425 .

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that two separate offenses were committed, necessitating two distinct Informations. The legal logic is anchored on the nature of the offenses and the rule against duplicitous complaints. The Court clarified that illegal possession of shabu (a regulated drug under Article III) and illegal possession of marijuana (a prohibited drug under Article II) are punished under different sections of R.A. No. 6425 , each defining a distinct crime with separate elements and penalties. The fact that the items were seized in one search operation at the same time and place does not merge the two violations into a single criminal act.
The Court emphasized that the rule under Section 13, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court mandates that a complaint or information must charge only one offense, except when the law prescribes a single punishment for various offenses. Here, the law prescribes different punishments for the possession of each type of drug. Citing People v. Tira, the Court held that possession of different kinds of prohibited drugs constitutes as many offenses as the number of drugs possessed. Consequently, the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in ordering the consolidation of the charges into a single Information. The Supreme Court set aside the assailed Decision and Orders and directed the trial court to proceed with the two separate criminal cases.