PEOPLE vs. JOSELITO NOQUE G.R.No. 175319 January 15, 2010 Del Castillo, J.:

Facts: Accused Joselito Noque was caught in a buy-bust operation conducted by SPO4 Norberto Murillo on January 30, 2001. Two Informations were filed before the RTC of Manila docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 01-189458 and 01-189459 charging of the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of a regulated drug. The trial court convicted the accused on both charges. The trial court held that while the Informations alleged methamphetamine hydrochloride as the drug seized from the appellant, the drug actually confiscated which was ephedrine, which by means of chemical reaction could change into methamphetamine. Thus, the trial court ruled that the appellant can be convicted of the offenses charged, which are included in the crimes proved. The CA affirmed the trial court’s decision. The CA held that the designations and allegations in the informations are for the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of regulated drugs. Hence, the accused appealed the case before the Supreme Court.

Issue: Whether or not appellant’s right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation was not violated.

Held: The appeal is bereft of merit.

As correctly observed by CA, the offenses designated in the Informations are for violations of Sections 15 and 16 of RA 6425, which define and penalize the crimes of illegal sale and possession of regulated drugs. The allegations in the Informations for the unauthorized sale and possession of “shabu” or methamphetamine hydrochloride are immediately followed by the qualifying phrase “which is a regulated drug”. Thus, it is clear that the designations and allegations in the Informations are for the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of regulated drugs. Ephedrine has been classified as a regulated drug by the Dangerous Drugs Board in Board Resolution No. 2, Series of 1988.

The CA correctly ruled that Sections 4 and 5, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court, can be applied by analogy in convicting the appellant of the offenses charged, which are included in the crimes proved. Under these provisions, an offense charged is necessarily included in the offense proved when the essential ingredients of the former constitute or form part of those constituting the latter. At any rate, a minor variance between the information and the evidence does not alter the nature of the offense, nor does it determine or qualify the crime or penalty, so that even if a discrepancy exists, this cannot be pleaded as a ground for acquittal. In other words, his right to be informed of the charges against him has not been violated because where an accused is charged with a specific crime, he is duly informed not only of such specific crime but also of lesser crimes or offenses included therein.