G.R. No. 265434 , March 3, 2025
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EDGARDO BERNARDINO Y TAMAYO A.K.A. “TOTONG,” ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Edgardo Bernardino was charged with violating Sections 5 and 15 of Republic Act No. 9165 (the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) after selling 678.45 grams of dried marijuana leaves in a buy-bust operation. A confirmatory test on his urine yielded positive results for marijuana and delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) metabolites. The ponencia found Bernardino guilty, as RA 9165 prohibits cannabis in all its forms indiscriminately.

ISSUE

Whether the sweeping prohibition of cannabis under Republic Act No. 9165 should be reexamined in light of the State’s policy to balance guarding against drug abuse with providing adequate care for those with legitimate medical needs, particularly considering the distinct properties and potential medical uses of different cannabis derivatives like THC and CBD.

RULING

The Separate Concurring Opinion agrees with the ponencia’s decision to dismiss the appeal and convict Bernardino based on the strict letter of RA 9165, which currently prohibits all forms of cannabis. However, it calls for a reexamination of this blanket prohibition. The opinion highlights that RA 9165 itself mandates a balance in the national drug control program to ensure people with legitimate medical needs have access to appropriate medications, which may include dangerous drugs. It distinguishes between the psychoactive compound THC, which has potential medical uses but also significant risks, and the non-psychoactive cannabidiol (CBD), which has therapeutic applications with a good safety profile and no abuse potential according to the World Health Organization. The opinion further notes that not all cannabis plants are marijuana, distinguishing between hemp (with THC content not more than 0.3%) and marijuana (with higher THC content). It points out that international treaties referenced in the law do not uniformly prohibit all cannabis derivatives, with the 1971 Convention listing only THC, not cannabis generally, as a Schedule I drug. The opinion concludes that the law could be worded more narrowly to account for the medicinal use of certain cannabis derivatives, like CBD, and that denying people potential cures based on a sweeping generalization may be unjust. Thus, while concurring with the dismissal of the appeal, the opinion urges a legislative reexamination to align the law with its stated policy of balance.