11/8/2017 G.R. No. 90342 May 27, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HILARIO C. MACASLING, JR.

JR. : MAY 1993 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDE

|chanrobles.com
ChanRoblesVirtualLawLibrary

Like 0 Tweet Share

Search

PhilippineSupremeCourtJurisprudence >Year 1993 > May 1993 Decisions >G.R. No.90342May 27,1993
PEOPLEOFTHEPHIL.v.HILARIOC.MACASLING,JR.:

Custom Search Search

ChanRoblesOnLineBarReview


THIRDDIVISION

[G.R.No.90342.May27,1993.]

PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,PlaintiffAppellee,v.HILARIOMACASLING,JR.yCOLOCADO,
AccusedAppellant.

TheSolicitorGeneralforplaintiffappellee.

PublicAttorneysOfficeforAccusedAppellant.


SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW R.A. No. 6425 (THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT) AS AMENDED BY BATAS PAMBANSA
BLG. 179 "SHABU" (A "STREET NAME" FOR METAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE "SHABU" IS A
DERIVATIVE OF A REGULATED DRUG, THE POSSESSION, SALE, TRANSPORTATION, ADMINISTRATION,
DISPENSATION,DELIVERYANDDISTRIBUTIONOFWHICHISSUBJECTTOR.A.NO.6425,ASAMENDED
THE USE OF CRIMINAL INFORMATION OF THE CASUAL TERM "SHABU" INSTEAD OF ITS SCIENTIFIC
NAMEDOESNOTAFFECTTHELEGALRESPONSIBILITYOFTHEACCUSED.ThisCourthasinfacttaken
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, 8 the possession, sale, transportation, etc. of which is
subjecttotheprovisionsofR.A.No.6425asamended.Itremainsonlytopointoutthat,inthecaseat
bar, the laboratory examination conducted on the crystalline granules recovered from appellant in fact
DebtKollectCompany,Inc. yieldedthecompoundmetamphetaminehydrochloride.Theuseinthecriminalinformationofthecasual
orvulgartermshaburatherthanthescientifictermmetamphetaminehydrochloride,doesnotaffectthe
legalresponsibilityofappellantundertherelevantprovisionsofR.A.No.6425asamended.

2. REMEDIAL LAW CRIMINAL PROCEDURE INFORMATION IT IS THE CHARACTER OF THE ACTS
CHARGEDINTHECRIMINALINFORMATION AND PROVEN AT THE TRIAL THAT IS IMPORTANT, RATHER
THAN THE CORRECTNESS OF THE DESIGNATION OF THE SECTION AND ARTICLE OF THE STATUTE
VIOLATED. It is true, as pointed out by the trial court, that the preambular portion of the criminal
informationinthiscasereferredtoviolationof"Section21(b)inrelationtoSection4,ArticleIIofR.A.
No.6425asamendedbyBatasPambansaBlg.179."Section21(b)ofthestatutereadsasfollows:"Sec.
21. Attempt and Conspiracy. The same penalty prescribed by this Act for the commission of the
offenseshallbeimposedincaseofanyattemptorconspiracytocommitthesameinthefollowingcases:
....(b)Sale,administration,delivery,distributionandtransportationofdangerousdrugs...Section4,
Article II of the statute deals with "sale, administration, distribution and transportation of prohibited
drugs." Upon the other hand, Section 15 of the statute is concerned with the "sale, administration,
dispensation, delivery, transportation and distribution of regulated drugs." It will be recalled that the
term "dangerous drugs" as used in the statute covers both "prohibited drugs" and "regulated drugs."
Thus,againaspointedoutbythetrialcourt,theopeningclauseofthecriminalinformationshould,more
precisely,havereferredtoSection15whichdealswith"regulateddrugs"ratherthantoSection4which
refers to "prohibited drugs." This imprecision in the specification of the appropriate section of R.A. No.
ChanRoblesIntellectualProperty 6425asamendedhas,however,noconsequencesinthecaseatbar.Foritisthecharacteroftheacts
Division chargedinthecriminalinformationandprovenatthetrialthatisimportant,ratherthanthecorrectness
ofthedesignationofthesectionandarticleofthestatuteviolated.Itshouldalsonotescapenoticethat
the penalty provided in Section 4: "life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P20,000.00 to
P30,000.00,"isexactlythesamepenaltyimposedinSection15ofthestatute.

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1993maydecisions.php?id=417 1/7
11/8/2017 G.R. No. 90342 May 27, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HILARIO C. MACASLING, JR. : MAY 1993 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDE
May-1993 Jurisprudence
G.R.No.88167May3,1993UNIVERSITYOFTHE
PHILIPPINES,ETAL.v.TEODOROP.REGINO,ETAL.
G.R.No.98442May4,1993PEOPLEOFTHEPHIL.
v.SANTIAGOFEROLINO
G.R. No. 103313 May 5, 1993 PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL.v.ALFREDOVERGARA,ETAL.
G.R.No.104404May6,1993SPOUSESTIUPECK,
ETAL.v.COURTOFAPPEALS,ETAL.
G.R. No. 97169 May 10, 1993 PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL.v.TEOFILOKEMPIS
G.R. No. 101798 May 10, 1993 PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL.v.MARIORIVERA
G.R. No. 94469 May 11, 1993 PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL.v.JUANVILLA
G.R. No. 94569 May 11, 1993 PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL.v.JOSEP.TANILON
G.R. No. 94754 May 11, 1993 USING BUTTON
AND BUCKLE INDUSTRY, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONSCOMMISSION,ETAL.
G.R. No. 96251 May 11, 1993 PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL.v.DANIELC.NAVARRO
G.R. No. 96795 May 11, 1993 ANTONIO M.
CORRAL v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION,ETAL.
G.R. No. 97189 May 11, 1993 JISSCOR
INDEPENDENTUNIONv.RUBENTORRES,ETAL.
G.R.No.97788May11,1993TEOFILADELUNAv.
COURTOFAPPEALS,ETAL.
G.R. Nos. 10022526 May 11, 1993 PEOPLE OF
THEPHIL.v.RAULN.SANTOS,ETAL.
G.R. No. 100480 May 11, 1993 BLANCA
CONSUELOROXASv.COURTOFAPPEALS,ETAL.
G.R. No. 95125 May 12, 1993 PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL.v.WILFREDOPAGSANJAN
G.R. No. 95890 May 12, 1993 PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL.v.ROLANDOPRECIOSO,ETAL.
G.R. No. 97239 May 12, 1993 INTERNATIONAL
RICE RESEARCH INSTITUTE v. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONSCOMMISSION,ETAL.
G.R.No.97838May12,1993LACAMPANAFOOD
PRODUCTS,INC.v.COURTOFAPPEALS,ETAL.
G.R. No. 98242 May 12, 1993 RADIO
COMMUNICATIONSOFTHEPHILS.,INC.v.NATIONAL
LABORRELATIONSCOMMISSION,ETAL.
G.R. No. 101315 May 12, 1993 PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL.v.MIGUELL.DELACRUZ
G.R. No. 85867 May 13, 1993 E. RAZON. INC. v.
SECRETARYOFLABORANDEMPLOYMENT
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1993maydecisions.php?id=417
3. ID. ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT ENTRAPMENT THE WARRANTLESS ARREST OF APPELLANT WAS
MERELY THE CULMINATION OF AN ENTRAPMENT OPERATION. Appellants next contention is that
becausehewasnolawfullyarrested,thepackagewitha"HappyDays"wrappercontaining50gramsof
shabu,takenfromhimwasinadmissibleinevidence.Appellantsclaimthathewasunlawfullyarrestedis
anchoredonthefactthatthearrestingofficershadneitherwarrantofarrestnorasearchwarrant.The
basic difficulty with appellants 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 officers
hadbeeninformedbytheChiefoftheNarcomRegionalOfficethatatransactionhadbeenagreedupon
byappellantinLasPias,MetroManila,involvingdeliveryofshabu,whichdeliverywas,however,totake
placeinRoomNo.77attheHyattTerracesHotelinBaguioCity.OnlyappellantwithEdithaGagarinand
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
arrestingofficersforappellantinsideRoomNo.77wasinfactanentrapmentoperation.Thesaleofthe
shabu(understoodasthemeetingofthemindsofsellerandbuyer)didnot,ofcourse,takeplaceinthe
presenceofthearrestingofficers.Thedeliveryorattempteddeliveryofthesubjectmatterdid,however,
takeplaceintheirpresence.
4. ID. ID. 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
trialcourtwasnotpersuadedbyappellantselaboratedisclaimerofknowledgeabouttheshabu,finding
such disclaimer as contrived and improbable and not worthy of credence. The rule, of course, is that
testimonytobebelievedmustnotonlyoriginatefromacrediblewitness,butmustalsoitselfbecredible.
Weseenoreason,andwehavebeenpointedtonone,whytheCourtshouldoverturntheappraisalofthe
trialcourtofthecredibility(orratherlackofcredibility)ofthelongstoryofferedbyappellant.Wefindno
basisfordepartingfromthebasicrulethattheappraisalbythetrialcourtofthecredibilityofwitnesses
who appeared before it is entitled to great respect from appellate courts who do not deal with live
witnessesbutonlywiththecoldpagesofawrittenrecord.
5. POLITICAL LAW CONSTITUTION BILL OF RIGHTS THE RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE
ANDCAUSEOFTHEACCUSATIONAGAINSTTHEACCUSEDTHEACTSWITHWHICHTHEACCUSEDWAS
CHARGED ARE PLAINLY SET OUT IN THE OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE CRIMINAL INFORMATION.
Appellantscontentionthathehadbeendeprivedofhisrighttobeinformedofthenatureandcauseof
theaccusationagainsthim,isbereftofmerit.Theactswithwhichhewaschargedarequiteplainlyset
out in the operative portion of the criminal information: that appellant "did willfully, unlawfully and
feloniouslysell,deliver,distribute,dispatchintransitortransport50gramsofshabu,knowingfullywell
that said shabu [is] a prohibited drug . . .." We agree with the trial court that the use of the term
"prohibiteddrug"wasmerelyaconclusionoflaw,somethingwhichisfortheCourttodetermineinthe
circumstances of this case, the inaccurate use of the term "prohibited drug" was also merely a falsa
descriptio.
DECISION
FELICIANO,J.:
HilarioMacasling,Jr.appealsfromtheDecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourtwhichsentencedhimtosuffer
lifeimprisonment,topayafineandcostsoflitigation.
Appellant Macasling was charged with violation of Republic Act ("R.A.") No. 6425, as amended, in an
informationwhichreadsasfollows: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"The undersigned accuses Hilario Macasling, Jr. y Colocado for violation of Section 21(b) in relation to
Section IV, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 179 (Sale,
Administration,Delivery,Transportation&Distribution),committedasfollows:
chanrob1esvirtual1awlibrary
That on or about the 20th day of August 1988, in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the
jurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,theabovenamedaccused,notauthorizedbylaw,didthenandthere
wilfully,unlawfullyandfeloniouslysell,deliver,distribute,dispatchintransitortransportfifty(50)grams
ofshabu,knowingfullywellthatsaidshabu[is]aprohibiteddrug,inviolationoftheabovementioned
provisionoflaw."1
Appellantenteredapleaofnotguiltyatarraignmentandthecaseproceededtotrial.Aftertrial,on18
August1989,thetrialcourtrenderedadecisionwiththefollowingdispositiveportion: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"WHEREFORE,inviewofalltheforegoing,theCourtfindstheaccusedHilarioMacasling,Jr.guiltybeyond
reasonabledoubtoftransportingand/orattemptingtodeliver50gramsofshabuinviolationofSection
21(b), Article IV in relation to Section 15, Article III, in relation to No. 2(e), Section 2, Article I of
RepublicActNo.6425,asamended,andherebysentenceshimtolifeimprisonmentandtopaythefine
ofTwentyThousand(P20,000.00)Pesos,withoutsubsidiaryimprisonmentincaseofinsolvency,andto
paythecosts.
The50gramsofshabucontainedinthewrappedpackagemarkedHappyDays(Exh.Handseries)being
thesubjectofthecrime,isherebydeclaredconfiscatedandforfeitedinfavoroftheStateandreferredto
theDangerousDrugsBoardforimmediatedestruction.
The accused Hilario Macasling, Jr. being a detention prisoner is entitled to be credited 4/5 of his
preventiveimprisonmentintheserviceofhissentenceunderArticle29oftheRevisedPenalCode.
SoOrdered."2
The evidence of record discloses that on 19 August 1988, at about 3:00 oclock in the afternoon, Lt.
ManuelObrera,ChiefoftheNarcoticsandIntelligenceDivision,IntegratedNationalPolice("INP"),Baguio
City,receivedatelephonecallfromtheChiefoftheNarcoticsCommand("Narcom"),FirstRegionalUnit,
INP.ThelattersoughttheassistanceofLt.Obreraintheapprehensionofappellantwho,accordingtothe
NarcomChief,wouldbedeliveringshabuatRoomNo.77oftheHyattTerracesHotelinBaguioCity,on
thatsameafternoon.Lt.ObreraquicklyformedateamwhichincludePat.RamoncitoBueno,Pat.Martel
Nilloandhimselfandhastilyleftforthehotel.TheretheyweremetbytheNarcomChiefwhoinformed
them that appellant Macasling had previously agreed with a Chinese businessman in Las Pias, Metro
Manila, that appellant would deliver about 250 grams of shabu at Room No. 77 of the Hyatt Terraces
Hotel.
Accordingly,Lt.ObreraandhiscompanionswaitedinsideRoomNo.77ofthehotel,forappellanttoshow
up.Appellant,however,didnotarrivethatafternoon.Instead,hearrivedattheHyattTerracesHotelat
about 1:00 oclock in the early morning of the following day, together with one Editha Gagarin and a
third person who was an undercover Narcom agent. Lt. Obrera opened the door of Room No. 77 to let
appellantandhispartyin,uponnoticingthattheNarcomagentwascombinghishair,whichwasapre
arranged signal meaning that appellant had the shabu in his possession. When appellant and his party
were inside Room No. 77, Lt. Obrera and his companions identified themselves to appellant and asked
him about the shabu. Appellant handed over a small package with a wrapper marked "Happy Days"
which,uponbeingopenedbythearrestingofficers,wasfoundtocontainabout50gramsofcrystalline
2/7
11/8/2017 G.R. No. 90342 May 27, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HILARIO C. MACASLING, JR. : MAY 1993 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDE
G.R. No. 98709 May 13, 1993 MAGDALENA
LLENARESv.COURTOFAPPEALS,ETAL.
G.R. No. 102970 May 13, 1993 LUZAN SIA v.
COURTOFAPPEAL,ETAL.
G.R. No. 104405 May 13, 1993 LIBERTY
INSURANCECORPORATIONv.COURTOFAPPEALS,ET
AL.
G.R.Nos.9499495May14,1993PEOPLEOFTHE
PHIL.v.LILIBETHP.CACO,ETAL.
G.R. No. 95756 May 14, 1993 PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL.v.CRISOLOGOEMPACIS
G.R. Nos. 10236162 May 14, 1993 PEOPLE OF
THEPHIL.v.RUDYFRONDA
A.M. No. CA913P May 17, 1993 ANSBERTO P.
PAREDESv.FRANCISCOS.PADUA,ETAL.
G.R.No.79021May 17, 1993 ROMEO S. CHUA v.
COURTOFAPPEALS,ETAL.
G.R. No. 85434 May 17, 1993 PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL.v.PERFECTOCRISOSTOMO,ETAL.
G.R. No. 93199 May 17, 1993 PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL.v.BLASAGUARINO,ETAL.
G.R. No. 94761 May 17, 1993 MAERSK LINE v.
COURTOFAPPEALS,ETAL.
G.R. No. 94977 May 17, 1993 PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL.v.GILBERTOYUMANG
G.R. No. 97218 May 17, 1993 PROVIDENT
SAVINGSBANKv.COURTOFAPPEALS,ETAL.
G.R. No. 98382 May 17, 1993 PHILIPPINE
NATIONALBANKv.COURTOFAPPEALS,ETAL.
G.R. No. 101124 May 17, 1993 PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL.v.CARMELINAC.TABAR,ETAL.
G.R. No. 101426 May 17, 1993 PHILIPPINE
AMERICAN GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v.
COURTOFAPPEALS,ETAL.
G.R. No. 102539 May 17, 1993 PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL.v.JOSEARGUELLES
G.R. No. 103125 May 17, 1993 PROVINCE OF
CAMARINES SUR, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL.
G.R. No. 103805 May 17, 1993 PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL.v.REYNALDOKYAMKO
G.R. No. 73875 May 18, 1993 PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL.v.JOSELITOAGBULOS
G.R. No. 73907 May 18, 1993 PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL.v.BUENAVENTURAARUTA,ETAL.
G.R. No. 75906 May 18, 1993 AMERICAN
EXPRESSPHIL.LOCALEMPLOYEESASSOCIATION,ET
AL.v.VICENTELEOGARDO,JR.,ETAL.
G.R. No. 79089 May 18, 1993 PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL.v.ROGELIOBONDOY
G.R. No. 80078 May 18, 1993 ATOK FINANCE
CORPORATIONv.COURTOFAPPEALS,ETAL.
G.R. No. 92504 May 18, 1993 PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL.v.WELLIQUIONES
G.R. No. 95755 May 18, 1993 PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL.v.ENRIQUEA.COLOMA
G.R. No. 97175 May 18, 1993 DEVELOPMENT
BANKOFTHEPHILIPPINESv.NLRC,ETAL.
G.R. No. 98318 May 18, 1993 HALILI INN,
INCORPORATEDv.CRESENCIANOB.TRAJANO,ETAL.
G.R. No. 100311 May 18, 1993 JUANITO LIM v.
COURTOFAPPEALS,ETAL.
G.R. No. 103219 May 18, 1993 PETER PAUL
PHILIPPINESCORP.v.NATIONALLABORRELATIONS
COMMISSION,ETAL.
A.M. No. R710RTJ May 21, 1993 FILOMENO R.
NEGADOv.MANUELE.AUTAJAY
A.M. No. 921030RTC May 21, 1993 LOLITA
HERNANDEZLOYv.WILLIAMBADEN
G.R. No. L46717 May 21, 1993 ANTONIO
BANZAGALES, ET AL. v. SPS. HERMINIA GALMAN, ET
AL.
G.R. No. 87667 May 21, 1993 PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL.v.ROLANDOS.QUETUA
G.R. No. 90257 May 21, 1993 PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL.v.CESARCERVANTES
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1993maydecisions.php?id=417
granules. 3 Appellant and Editha Gagarin were brought to Camp Bado, Dangwa, La Trinidad, Benguet,
wherethefactoftheirarrestwasofficiallyrecorded.TheywerelatertransferredtotheBaguioCityJail
as detention prisoners. The crystalline granules were forwarded to the INP Crime Laboratory in Camp
Crame,QuezonCity,forexamination.TheForensicChemistinchargeoftheexaminationsubjectedthe
granules to four (4) different tests, namely, the color test, the melting point test, the thin layer
chromatography test, and the spectroinfra red test. All the tests showed the presence of
metamphetaminehydrochloride,thescientificnameofthesubstancepopularlycalledshabu.4
The investigation conducted by the City Prosecutor of Baguio City initially included Editha Gagarin.
However, upon the basis of a letter written by appellant Macasling admitting sole responsibility for the
acts charged in the information, Editha was excluded from the information. In that letter, appellant
statedthatEdithawascompletelyinnocent,andthatshehadmerelycomealongwithappellant,athis
invitation,toBaguioCity.
AppellantMacaslingmadethefollowingassignmentoferrorsinhisBrief:
chanrob1esvirtual1awlibrary
1. The lower court erred in not holding that since the arresting officers were not armed with a search
warrant nor a warrant of arrest, the arrest and consequent confiscation of the package with a wrapper
markedHappyDayscontain[ing]50gramsofshabu(Exh.Handseries)areillegalandunlawful,hence
areinadmissibleinevidence.
2. The lower court erred in not acquitting the accused on the ground that shabu is not one of those
mentionedinR.A.No.6425,asamended.
3. The lower court erred in not acquitting the accused on the ground that he was deprived of his
constitutionalrighttobeinformedofthenatureandthecauseoftheaccusationagainsthim.5
Weshallconsidertheaboveallegederrorsthoughnotintheordersubmittedbyappellant.
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
We consider first appellants argument that he cannot be convicted of the offense charged in the
informationconsideringthatshabuthetermusedintheinformationisnotadangerousdrug,since
itisnotoneofthoseenumeratedassuchinR.A.No.6425(TheDangerousDrugsAct).
R.A. No. 6425, as amended, distinguishes between "prohibited drugs" and "regulated drugs." Article I,
Section 2 (e) defines the term "dangerous drugs" as referring either to "prohibited drugs" or to
"regulateddrugs"inthefollowingmanner: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"(e)DangerousDrugsreferstoeither:
chanrob1esvirtual1awlibrary
(1)Prohibiteddrug,whichincludesopiumanditsactivecomponentsandderivatives,suchasheroinand
morphine coca leaf and its derivatives principally cocaine alpha and beta eucaine, hallucinogenic
drugs, such as mescaline, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) and other substances producing similar
effects Indian hemp and its derivatives all preparations made from any of the foregoing and other
drugsandchemicalpreparations,whethernaturalorsynthetic,withthephysiologicaleffectsofanarcotic
orahallucinogenicdrugor(AsamendedbyB.P.Blg.179,March12,1982.).
(2) Regulated drug which includes selfinducing sedatives, such as secobarbital phenobarbital,
pentobarbital,barbital,amobarbitalandanyotherdrugwhichcontainsasaltoraderivativeofasaltof
barbituricacidandsalt,isomerorsaltofanisomer,ofamphetamine,suchasbenzedrineordexedrine,
oranydrugwhichproducesaphysiologicalactionsimilartoamphetamineandhypnoticdrugs,suchas
methaqualone,nitrazepamoranyothercompoundproducingsimilarphysiologicaleffects(samendedby
P.D.No.1683,March14,1980.)
xxx
(Emphasissupplied)
The statute penalizes the sale, administration, delivery, distribution and transportation of both
"prohibiteddrugs"and"regulateddrugs:"
"ArticleII.
ProhibitedDrugs
xxx
SECTION 4. Sale, Administration, Delivery, Distribution and transportation of Prohibited Drugs. The
penaltyoflifeimprisonmenttodeathandafinerangingfromtwentythousandtothirtythousandpesos
shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, administer, deliver, give
awaytoanother,distribute,dispatchintransitortransportanyprohibiteddrug,orshallactasabroker
inanyofsuchtransactions.Ifthevictimoftheoffenseisaminor,orshouldaprohibiteddruginvolvedin
any offense under this Section be the proximate cause of the death of a victim thereof, the maximum
penaltyhereinprovidedshallbeimposed.(AsamendedbyP.D.No.1675,February17,1980.)
xxx
ArticleIII
RegulatedDrugs
xxx
SECTION 15. Sale, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Transportation and Distribution of Regulated
Drugs. The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from twenty thousand to thirty
thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, dispense,
deliver, transport or distribute any regulated drug. If the victim of the offense is a minor, or should a
regulateddruginvolvedinanyoffenseunderthissectionbetheproximatecauseofthedeathofavictim
thereof,themaximumpenaltyhereinprovidedshallbeimposed.(AsamendedbyP.D.No.1683,March
14,1980.)
xxx
(Emphasissupplied)
Thetrialcourtafternotingtheabovequotedprovisionsofthestatute,wentontosaythat:
jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"From the above provisions of law, it is clear that shabu which is the street name of metamphetamine
hydrochloride,isnotamongthoseenumeratedasprohibiteddrugsunderNo.1(e),Section2,ArticleIon
3/7
11/8/2017 G.R. No. 90342 May 27, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HILARIO C. MACASLING, JR. : MAY 1993 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDE
G.R. No. 92847 May 21, 1993 PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL.v.CATALINOL.QUIMING,ETAL.
G.R. No. 93947 May 21, 1993 PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL.v.AGUSTINABIERA
G.R. No. 97028 May 21, 1993 PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL.v.ALICIAB.GAOAT
G.R.Nos.9842526May21,1993PEOPLEOFTHE
PHIL.v.REYNALDOAGUILAR
G.R. No. 101831 May 21, 1993 PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL.v.ROGELIOA.BALIDIATA
G.R. Nos. 10344245 May 21, 1993 NATIONAL
POWERCORPORATION,ETAL.v.COURTOFAPPEALS,
ETAL.
G.R. Nos. 10428586 May 21, 1993 PEOPLE OF
THEPHIL.v.VICTORR.ANGELES
G.R.No.89252May24,1993RAULSESBREOv.
COURTOFAPPEALS,ETAL.
G.R. No. 91436 May 24, 1993 METROPOLITAN
BANK&TRUSTCOMPANYv.QUILTS&ALL,INC.
G.R.No.95775May24,1993DANILORABINO,ET
AL.v.ADORACRUZ,ETAL.
G.R.No.9714142May24,1993 PEOPLEOF THE
PHIL.v.LUCILOM.BERNARDO,ETAL.
G.R. No. 97427 May 24, 1993 PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL.v.REYNALDOP.CRISOSTOMO
G.R. No. 100232 May 24, 1993 PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL.v.ROBERTOALIB
G.R. No. 105907 May 24, 1993 FELICIANO V.
AGBANLOGv.PEOPLEOFTHEPHIL.,ETAL.
G.R. No. 76951 May 25, 1993 PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL.v.ARMANDOMAESTRO,ETAL.
G.R.No.100525May25,1993SOCORROABELLA
SORIANOv.COURTOFAPPEALS,ETAL.
G.R. Nos. 10180407 May 25, 1993 PEOPLE OF
THEPHIL.v.FELIMONRAMOS,ETAL.
G.R.No.105360May25,1993PEDROP.PECSON
v.COURTOFAPPEALS,ETAL.
G.R. No. 74189 May 26, 1993 PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL.v.ANTONIOV.ENRILE,ETAL.
G.R.No.97203May26,1993ISIDROCARIO,ET
AL.v.IGNACIOM.CAPULONG,ETAL.
G.R.No.98043May26,1993 BAGUIOCOLLEGES
FOUNDATION, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONSCOMMISSION,ETAL.
G.R. No. 102314 May 26, 1993 LEA O. CAMUS v.
COURTOFAPPEALS,ETAL.
G.R. No. 90342 May 27, 1993 PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL.v.HILARIOC.MACASLING,JR.
G.R.No.99327May27,1993ATENEODEMANILA
UNIVERSITY, ET AL. v. IGNACIO M. CAPULONG, ET
AL.
G.R. Nos. 10118990 May 27, 1993 PEOPLE OF
THEPHIL.v.GILBERTS.SANANDRES
G.R. No. 101847 May 27, 1993 LOURDES
NAVARRO,ETAL.v.COURTOFAPPEALS,ETAL.
G.R. No. 104754 May 27, 1993 GERMAN P.
ZAGADAv.CIVILSERVICECOMMISSION,ETAL.
G.R. No. 52080 May 28, 1993 GOVERNMENT
SERVICEINSURANCESYSTEMv.COURTOFAPPEALS,
ETAL.
G.R. No. 93722 May 28, 1993 PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL.v.DANILOM.GONZALES
G.R. No. 9905456 May 28, 1993 ERLINDA O.
MEDINA, ET AL. v. CONSOLIDATED BROADCASTING
SYSTEM,ETAL.
G.R. No. 100771 May 28, 1993 PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL.v.ROMEOPAMINTUAN,ETAL.
G.R. No. 101310 May 28, 1993 PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL.v.ROMEOA.BAY
G.R. No. 101522 May 28, 1993 LEONARDO
MARIANO,ETAL.v.COURTOFAPPEALS,ETAL.
G.R. Nos. 10294951 May 28, 1993 PEOPLE OF
THEPHIL.v.JESUSLAGNAS,ETAL.
G.R.No.102996May28,1993TOPMANAGEMENT
PROGRAMSCORPORATIONv.COURTOFAPPEALS,ET
AL.
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1993maydecisions.php?id=417
DefinitionofTermsofRepublicAct6425,asamended.
Obviously, metamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) is a derivative of amphetamine or a compound
thereof,meaningtosay,amphetamineincombinationwithotherdrugsorelementswhich,ifonelooks
closer, is actually enumerated among the regulated drugs under No. 2(e), Section 2, Article I on
DefinitionofTermsofRepublicAct6425,asamended.
Notethatthelawsayswhenitdefinesregulateddrugsasthose`whichincludesselfinducingsedatives
such as . . . of amphetamine such as benzedrine or dexedrine, or any other drug which produces a
physiological action similar to amphetamine, and hypnotic drugs, such as methaqualone or any other
compound producing similar physiological effects. Since shabu is actually metamphetamine
hydrochloride, it would then be obvious that its component parts would be the compound of
amphetamine with other elements to form metamphetamine hydrochloride. In other words, among the
elementscontainedinmetamphetaminehydrochlorideisamphetamine,aregulateddrug.
xxx6
(Emphasissupplied)
Weagreewiththeaboverulingofthetrialcourt.ThisCourthasinfacttakenjudicialnoticethatshabuis
a "street name" for metamphetamine hydrochloride (or "methyl amphetamine hydrochloride"). 7
Considering the chemical composition of shabu, the Court has declared that shabu is a derivative of a
regulateddrug,8thepossession,sale,transportation,etc.ofwhichissubjecttotheprovisionsofR.A.
No.6425asamended.Itremainsonlytopointoutthat,inthecaseatbar,thelaboratoryexamination
conducted on the crystalline granules recovered from appellant in fact yielded the compound
metamphetaminehydrochloride.Theuseinthecriminalinformationofthecasualorvulgartermshabu
ratherthanthescientifictermmetamphetaminehydrochloride,doesnotaffectthelegalresponsibilityof
appellantundertherelevantprovisionsofR.A.No.6425asamended.
Itistrue,aspointedoutbythetrialcourt,thatthepreambularportionofthecriminalinformationinthis
case referred to violation of "Section 21 (b) in relation to Section 4, Article II of R.A. No. 6425 as
amendedbyBatasPambansaBlg.179."Section21(b)ofthestatutereadsasfollows: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"SECTION21.AttemptandConspiracy.ThesamepenaltyprescribedbythisActforthecommissionof
theoffenseshallbeimposedincaseofanyattemptorconspiracytocommitthesameinthefollowing
cases:
chanrob1esvirtual1awlibrary
xxx
(b)Sale,administration,delivery,distributionandtransportationofdangerousdrugs
xxx
(Emphasissupplied)
Section 4, Article II of the statute deals with "sale, administration, distribution and transportation of
prohibited drugs." Upon the other hand, Section 15 of the statute is concerned with the "sale,
administration, dispensation, delivery, transportation and distribution of regulated drugs." It will be
recalled that the term "dangerous drugs" as used in the statute covers both "prohibited drugs" and
"regulated drugs." Thus, again as pointed out by the trial court, the opening clause of the criminal
informationshould,moreprecisely,havereferredtoSection15whichdealswith"regulateddrugs"rather
than to Section 4 which refers to "prohibited drugs." This imprecision in the specification of the
appropriatesectionofR.A.No.6425asamendedhas,however,noconsequencesinthecaseatbar.For
itisthecharacteroftheactschargedinthecriminalinformationandprovenatthetrialthatisimportant,
ratherthanthecorrectnessofthedesignationofthesectionandarticleofthestatuteviolated.Itshould
also not escape notice that the penalty provided in Section 4: "life imprisonment to death and a fine
ranging from P20,000.00 to P30,000.00," is exactly the same penalty imposed in Section 15 of the
statute.
Inmuchthesameway,appellantscontentionthathehadbeendeprivedofhisrighttobeinformedof
the nature and cause of the accusation against him, is bereft of merit. The acts with which he was
chargedarequiteplainlysetoutintheoperativeportionofthecriminalinformation:thatappellant"did
willfully,unlawfullyandfeloniouslysell,deliver,distribute,dispatchintransitortransport50gramsof
shabu,knowingfullywellthatsaidshabu[is]aprohibiteddrug...."Weagreewiththetrialcourtthat
theuseoftheterm"prohibiteddrug"wasmerelyaconclusionoflaw,somethingwhichisfortheCourtto
determineinthecircumstancesofthiscase,theinaccurateuseoftheterm"prohibiteddrug"wasalso
merelyafalsadescriptio.Thetrialcourtsaid:
chanrobles.com.ph:virtuallawlibrary
"TheCourtstressedthispointasinthebodyoftheInformationwhatisallegedastheoffensecommitted
isthattheaccusedunlawfullyandfeloniouslysell,deliver,distribute,dispatchintransitortransport50
gramsofshabuknowingfullywellthatsaidshabuisaprohibiteddruginviolationofthelaw.
Itcanreadilybeseenthatthesubjectmatteroftheoffense,asrecitedinthebodyoftheInformation,is
thetransportorsaleordeliveryofthe50gramsofshabu.Thisistheallegationoffactinrespecttothe
actsconstitutingtheoffense.Thisistheoffensethatwouldneedtobeproved.However,theallegation
that shabu is a prohibited drug is a conclusion of law. Apparently, the prosecutor who filed the
Information considered shabu a prohibited drug. Thus, the prosecutor designated the offense as a
violationofSection21(b)inrelationtoSection4,ArticleIIofRepublicActNo.6425,asamended.The
Court pointed this out as should shabu, which really is the street name of metamphetamine
hydrochloride be, in fact, a regulated drug, then the designation of the offense should have been
Violation of Section 21(b), Article IV in relation to Section 15, Article III of Republic Act 6425, as
amended.Butnote,despitethemistakendesignationoftheoffensetherewouldnotbeachangeinthe
offensechargedforasrecitedinthebodyoftheInformation,whatischargedisstillthesale,transport
ordeliveryof50gramsofshabu.Thatistheoneimportant.Onlythedesignationoftheoffensewasa
mistakefromregulateddrugtoprohibiteddrugwhichisaconclusionoflaw.
Thiswouldnotviolatetheconstitutionalrightoftheaccusedtobeinformedofthenatureandcauseof
the accusation against him. As in fact, the accused is still informed of the offense charged, that is, the
unlawfultransport,saleordeliveryof50gramsofshabu.
xxx9
(Emphasispartlyintheoriginalandpartlysupplied)
Appellantsnextcontentionisthatbecausehewasnolawfullyarrested,thepackagewitha"HappyDays"
wrapper containing 50 grams of shabu, taken from him was inadmissible in evidence. Appellants claim
thathewasunlawfullyarrestedisanchoredonthefactthatthearrestingofficershadneitherwarrantof
arrestnorasearchwarrant.
Thebasicdifficultywithappellantscontentionisthatittotallydisregardstheantecedentsofthearrestof
appellant inside Room No. 77 of the Hyatt Terraces Hotel. It will be recalled that the arresting officers
4/7
11/8/2017 G.R. No. 90342 May 27, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HILARIO C. MACASLING, JR. : MAY 1993 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDE
G.R. No. 103554 May 28, 1993 TEODORO
CANEDA,ETAL.v.COURTOFAPPEALS,ETAL.
G.R. No. L61154 May 31, 1993 PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL.v.SEGUNDINO"GODING"JOTOY
G.R. No. 94703 May 31, 1993 PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL.v.ROBERTOOLIQUINO
G.R. No. 96497 May 31, 1993 SAN MIGUEL
CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION,ETAL.
G.R. No. 100682 May 31, 1993 GIL TAPALLA, ET
AL.v.COURTOFAPPEALS,ETAL.
G.R. No. 100947 May 31, 1993 PNOCENERGY
DEVELOPMENTCORP.,ETAL.v.NLRC,ETAL.
G.R. No. 101005 May 31, 1993 PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL.v.ERNESTOG.CORPUZ
G.R.No.101641May31,1991
VENANCIO DIOLA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONSCOMMISSION,ETAL.
G.R. No. 105756 May 31, 1993 SPS. LORETO
CLARAVALL,ETAL.v.FLORENIOE.TIERRA,ETAL.
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1993maydecisions.php?id=417
hadbeeninformedbytheChiefoftheNarcomRegionalOfficethatatransactionhadbeenagreedupon
byappellantinLasPias,MetroManila,involvingdeliveryofshabu,whichdeliverywas,however,totake
placeinRoomNo.77attheHyattTerracesHotelinBaguioCity.OnlyappellantwithEdithaGagarinand
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
arrestingofficersforappellantinsideRoomNo.77wasinfactanentrapmentoperation.Thesaleofthe
shabu(understoodasthemeetingofthemindsofsellerandbuyer)didnot,ofcourse,takeplaceinthe
presenceofthearrestingofficers.Thedeliveryorattempteddeliveryofthesubjectmatterdid,however,
takeplaceintheirpresence.Thetrialcourtexplained: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"The situation at hand is no different from a buy bust operation and is in fact part of a buy bust
operation. It must be stressed that the sale was transacted and closed in Las Pias, Metro Manila by a
ChinesebusinessmanbutthedeliverywasdirectedtobemadeinRoom77,HyattTerraces,Baguio.And
insteadoftheChinesebusinessmanbeinginsideRoom77toreceivethedelivery,theNarcomelements
tookhisplacetoentrapthepartythatwilldeliver.
Normally, the buy bust operation may take the form of both the negotiation for the sale and delivery
being made in the same place between the seller and the poseur buyer. And when the sale is agreed
upon, on the same occasion the drug is delivered upon the payment being given. And it is at this
juncturethatthepoliceortheNarcomelementscloseintoarresttheoffenderintheactofsellingand
delivering.Thisistheclassiccaseofa`buybustoperation,tobustdrugpushing.
Butsurely,therearevariationsofa`butbustoperation,wherethesaleisagreeduponinoneplacelike
on the street and then the delivery is to be made in another place as when the buyer and the seller
proceedtothehousewherethedrugisstoredforthedelivery.Anduponthedeliveryofthedrugbythe
sellertothebuyer,thepoliceelementswillarrestthesellerintheactofdelivering.
Andinthecaseatbar,thesituationisbutanextensionofthesecondvariationaboveillustratedwhere
thesaleisagreeduponinoneplacebutthedeliveryistobemadeinanotherplace.Asherethesalewas
agreeduponinLasPiasbutthedeliverywastobemadeinafarawayplace,inHyattTerraces,Baguio
City.Surely,theaboveisstillpartandparcelofabuybustoperationalthoughaswesaiditismorea
`bustthedeliveryoperation.
xxx
ThefactthattheNarcomgottoknowbeforehandthedeliverytobemadethrutheirintelligencesources
must be given credence by the Court. Like any other organization fighting the crime on drugs, the
Narcommusthaveintelligencesourcesoritcannotperformitsfunctionswellandfulfillitsmission.
chanrobles.com:virtuallawlibrary
Thus,towaitforthedelivery,theNarcomelementsdeployedthemselvesinsideRoom77inplaceofthe
Chinese businessman to entrap the party who will appear to deliver the shabu which they will know
wouldbeinhispossessionthruaprearrangedsignaloftheirundercoveragent.Whosoevercomesand
appearsinRoom77wouldbeit.Allotherpersonsareunexpected(sic)tocometoRoom77andhaveno
businessappearingthereexcepttodelivertheshabuunlessexplained.Andultimatelytheirwaitingpaid
off as accused Hilario Macasling, Jr. appeared in Room 77 to deliver the shabu and from whom it was
takenbytheNarcom.Thelackofwarrantofarrestisnotfatalasthiswouldbecoveredbythesituation
provided for warrantless arrests under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court where an offender is
arrestedwhileactuallycommittinganoffenseorattemptingtocommittheoffenseinthepresenceofa
peaceofficer.
xxx
TheCourtmuststressthatthesituationinthecaseatbarisverydifferentfromasituationwherethelaw
enforcingagentsorelementswillsimplyaccostpeopleatrandomontheroad,street,boat,planeorbus
withoutanyprearrangedtransactionandwithoutwarrantofarrestorsearchwarrantandbychancefind
drugs in the possession of a passerby. This latter situation is clearly not permissible and would be in
violationoftheconstitutionalrightsofapersonagainstunreasonablesearchesandseizures.Thiswould
beafishingexpedition.Yousearchfirst,andifyoufindanythingunlawfulyouarrest.
Buthereitisnotatrandom.Therewasapreviousunlawfultransaction.Thereisadesignatedplacefor
delivery, Room 77 and a specified time frame, that very day of August 19, 1988 or thereabouts, and
limited to a particular person, in the sense that whoever would appear thereat would be it. Those who
dont knock at Room 77 and dont go inside Room 77 will not certainly be arrested. But those who will
thereatthattimeandinthatplacewillsurelybearrestedbecauseoftheadvanceinformation,thruthe
intelligencesources,onthedeliveryandthepriortransactionmade.Thismakesalotofdifference.
xxx
Butinthecaseatbar,AccusedHilarioMacasling,Jr.,atthetimeofhisarrest,wasactuallyintheactof
committingacrimeorattemptingtocommitacrimeinthepresenceofthepeaceofficersasheappeared
there in Room 77 to deliver 50 grams of shabu, a regulated drug, which was previously bought but
directedtobedeliveredthereat.
TheaccusedhadnoreasontobeatRoom77,knockingtherein,andgoinginside,ifhewasnottheparty
to deliver the shabu, and indeed he was. And the Narcom elements have the right to pounce on him
immediately lest he gets away, or is tipped off, or can sense something is amiss or wrong. Unless, of
course,Accused can explain then and there that he knocked on the door and went inside Room 77 by
mistakelikebeinganinnocenthotelboy,roomboyorhotelemployeewhoisgoinginsidetheroomtofix
theroom.Orthataccusedisahotelguestwhocommittedamistakeastohiscorrectroom.Butthisis
notthesituationathandasnosuchexplanationwasimmediatelymadebytheaccused.Onthecontrary,
Accusedwentinsidetheroomwhenletinindicatingbeyondreasonabledoubtthathewasthepartyto
deliver, and indeed he was, as the shabu was taken from his person after the prearranged signal was
given by the undercover agent. These circumstances speak for themselves. Res Ipsa Loquitor. The
accusedwascaughtinflagrantedelicto.
xxx"10
(Emphasissupplied)
We consider that under the total circumstances of this case, the warrantless arrest of appellant inside
RoomNo.77wasmerelytheculminationofanentrapmentoperationandthatthetakingofshabufrom
appellantwaseitherdoneimmediatelybefore,orwasanincidentof,alawfularrest.11
As his principal factual defense, appellant denied knowledge of the fact that the package bearing the
"Happy Days" wrapper contained a quantity of a dangerous drug, claiming that he had merely been
instructed by his employer, Mr. Ben Diqueros, to bring the package to Baguio City as a gift for Mrs.
Diqueros. Appellant sought to explain his trip to Baguio by insisting that he had been asked by Mr.
DiquerostodrivethelattersToyotaCelicacartotheDiquerosresidenceinTrancoVille,BaguioCity,as
Mrs. Diqueros was planning to sell the car. Macasling had in turn invited Editha Gagarin, together with
thelatterschildrenandmother,tojoinhiminBaguioCity.TheyreachedBaguioCitylaterintheevening
5/7
11/8/2017 G.R. No. 90342 May 27, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HILARIO C. MACASLING, JR. : MAY 1993 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDE
of19August1988andstayedtemporarilyattheCastillaMonte.Appellantcontendedthathehadleftthe
CastillaMontetoseeMrs.DiquerosattheirresidenceinTrancoVillebutwasthereinformedbyoneMario
and a domestic helper that Mrs. Diqueros was at the Hyatt Terraces Hotel. Appellant then had Mario
accompanyhimtothehotelwheretheyfoundMrs.Diquerosplayinginthecasino.Appellant,however,
decidednottobotherMrs.DiquerosandsoreturnedtotheCastillaMonte.

WhileattheCastillaMonte,appellantcontinued,hereceivedatelephonecallfromMarioinforminghim
thatMrs.Diqueroshadfinishedplayingatthecasino.Althoughitwasthenmidnight,appellanttogether
with Editha Gagarin proceeded to the Hyatt Terraces Hotel. There they were met at the hotel lobby by
MariowhoinformedthemthatMr.DiqueroswasatRoomNo.77.Appellantclaimedthathewas,inRoom
No. 77, searched at gunpoint and that the package he was carrying for Mrs. Diqueros was seized.
Unknowntohim,heinsisted,thegiftpackagecontained"shabu."12

The trial court was not persuaded by appellants elaborate disclaimer of knowledge about the shabu,
findingsuchdisclaimerascontrivedandimprobableandnotworthyofcredence.13Therule,ofcourse,
isthattestimonytobebelievedmustnotonlyoriginatefromacrediblewitness,butmustalsoitselfbe
credible.14 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.Wefindnobasisfordepartingfromthebasicrulethattheappraisalbythetrialcourtofthe
credibilityofwitnesseswhoappearedbeforeitisentitledtogreatrespectfromappellatecourtswhodo
notdealwithlivewitnessesbutonlywiththecoldpagesofawrittenrecord.

WHEREFORE,theDecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourtBaguioCity,inCriminalCaseNo.5936Rishereby
AFFIRMEDintoto.Nopronouncementastocosts.

SOORDERED.

Bidin,Davide,Jr.,RomeroandMelo,JJ.,concur.

Endnotes:

1.Record,p.1.

2.TrialCourtDecision,pp.1415Record,pp.7879.

3.TSN,4January1989,pp.217TSN,5January1989,pp.1941.

4.TSN,8February1989,pp.4351ChemistryReport,dated21August1988.

5.AppellantsBrief,p.1Rollo,p.42.

6.TrialCourtDecision,pp.1314Rollo,pp.2728.

7.See,e.g.,Peoplev.Angeles,209SCRA801(1992)Peoplev.DelMar,210SCRA448
(1992)Peoplev.Buendia,210SCRA531(1992).

8.Id.

9.TrialCourtDecision,pp.1011Rollo,pp.2425.

10.TrialCourtDecision,pp.58Rollo,pp.1922.

11. See People v. Malmstedt, 198 SCRA 401 (1991) People v. Asio, 177 SCRA 250
(1989) People v. Lo Ho Wing, 193 SCRA 122 (1991) Manipon v. Sandiganbayan, 143
SCRA267(1986).

12.TSN,8March1989,pp.28.

13.TrialCourtsDecision,Rollo,pp.2324.

14.E.g.,Peoplev.Maspil,188SCRA751(1990)Peoplev.Aldana,175SCRA635(1989)
Peoplev.Maribang,149SCRA292(1987).

BacktoHome|BacktoMain

QUICKSEARCH

1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908

1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
2013 2014 2015 2016

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1993maydecisions.php?id=417 6/7
11/8/2017 G.R. No. 90342 May 27, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HILARIO C. MACASLING, JR. : MAY 1993 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDE
Main Indices of the Library > Go!

Copyright19982017ChanRoblesPublishingCompany |Disclaimer|EmailRestrictions
ChanRoblesVirtualLawLibrary|chanrobles.com RED

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1993maydecisions.php?id=417 7/7