PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.

SIXTO MORICO
246 SCRA 214 | July 14, 1995
Peralta, J.

Doctrine: An accused cannot be convicted of an offense not charged in the information.

FACTS
Accused-appellant in this was found guilty of violation of Sections 4 and 15 of RA 6425
also known as Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. According to the prosecution, the Anti-Narcotics
Command in Bacoor, Cavite received an information from their confidential informant that a
certain Sixto was engaged in the selling of marijuana leaves. A team was then formed to conduct
the buy-bust operation. A marked bill was given to the informant who was also tasked to act as the
poseur-buyer. The team went to the house of the appellant wherein the poseur buyer handed the
marked ten-peso bill to the accused-appellant and in return, the latter gave him a small package.
Immediately thereafter, the police arrested the appellant and brought him to the district office of
NARCOM in Cavite.
On the other hand, the accused-appellant claims that he was working as a mason when he
was arrested. When he asked why he was being arrested, he was told that he was selling marijuana.
He also claims that he only saw the marijuana sticks when the same was presented as evidence
against him. On the 3rd day of his detention, he was forcibly asked to sign Receipt of Seized
Property without the assistance of a counsel. Furthermore, he alleges that when he signed the
Booking Sheet and Arrest Report, the same were not explained to him nor was he assisted by the
counsel.
On appeal, accused-appellant claims that the trial court erred in convicting him of an
offense which is not charged. He also faults the same for giving credence to the testimonies of the
prosecution’s witnesses despite irreconcilable contradictions and questions the admissibility of the
Receipt of Property Seized, Booking Sheet and Arrest Report for being obtained in violation of his
constitutional rights.

ISSUES AND HOLDING

1. W/N the trial court erred in convicting him of a crime different than that charged? – YES.
The information filed against the accused was a violation of Section 4, Article 2 of
RA 6425. However, he was convicted for violating Sections 4 and 15 of the same law. It
must be noted that the two sections contemplate two separate and distinct offenses- the
former penalizes any person who sells, administers, delivers, distributes and transports any
prohibited drugs while the latter penalizes the same act of any regulated drugs. It must be
emphasized that an accused cannot be convicted of an offense not charged in the
information because by doing so would constitute a violation of his constitutional rights-
to be informed of the charges against him and his right to due process.
Moreover, there is no showing that accused-appellant is engaged in selling,
administering, delivering or distributing any regulated drug to warrant a conviction under
Sec. 15. However, his contention regarding the inconsistencies of the testimonies of the
witnesses deserve scant consideration since the inconsistencies pertain to minor details and
will not change the fact that the accused-appellant was caught in flagrante delicto as a
result of the buy-bust operation.

SERAPIO C2021 | 1
 2. W/N the Receipt of Property Seized, Booking Sheets and Arrest Reports may be admitted
as evidence against him? -YES except the receipt of property seized.
Accused-appellant now contends that the aforementioned documents should be
inadmissible as evidence against him because they were signed without the assistance of a
counsel. However, it is a well-settled rule that when mere signing of a booking sheet and
arrest report at a police station is not tantamount to admission of guilt for the commission
of an offense. The Booking Sheet is merely a statement of the accused's being booked and
of the date which accompanies the fact of an arrest. It is a police report and maybe useful
in charges of arbitrary detention against the police themselves. It is not an extra-judicial
statement and cannot be the basis of a judgment of conviction.
However, the same cannot be said for the Receipt of Property Seized. It is
inadmissible as evidence because it was signed without the assistance of a counsel. A
signature of this document will result into a declaration against his interest and tacit
admission of the crime charged.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED with the following

MODIFICATIONS: (1) that appellant shall suffer an indeterminate penalty of SIX (6) MONTHS
of arresto mayor, as minimum, to SIX (6) YEARS of prision correccional, as maximum; and (2)
that the fine of P25,000.00 imposed by the trial court is deleted.

SERAPIO C2021 | 2