Under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (Republic Act No. 9165), the illegal sale of marijuana is treated with the utmost severity. The Philippine legal system adopts a policy of zero tolerance toward drug trafficking, and for those who recidivate—specifically second-time offenders—the law provides no leniency, focusing instead on maximum retribution and public safety.
1. The Core Violation: Section 5 of RA 9165
The sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution, and transportation of dangerous drugs (including marijuana) are governed by Section 5.
Regardless of the quantity of marijuana sold—whether it is a single gram or a kilogram—the law prescribes a singular, heavy penalty for the act of selling. The mere consummation of the sale is sufficient to trigger the statutory penalties.
2. Penalties for the First Offense
To understand the gravity for a second-timer, one must look at the baseline. For a first-time offender convicted of the illegal sale of marijuana:
- Life Imprisonment
- A fine ranging from ₱500,000.00 to ₱10,000.000.00
3. The Impact of Recidivism and Second-Time Offenses
While Section 5 already imposes "Life Imprisonment," the law includes specific provisions for recidivism under Section 23 (Plea Bargaining) and general principles of the Revised Penal Code, which applies suppletorily to special laws like RA 9165.
Prohibition on Probation and Parole
Under Section 24 of RA 9165, any person convicted of drug trafficking/sale is denied the benefit of the Probation Law. Furthermore, for second-time offenders:
- Ineligibility for Plea Bargaining: While the Supreme Court case Estipona v. Lobrigo allowed plea bargaining in certain drug cases, this is generally denied to recidivists or those with prior convictions of the same nature.
- No Parole: Convicts of Section 5 violations are generally ineligible for parole under the Indeterminate Sentence Law because their penalty is an indivisible one (Life Imprisonment).
The Maximum Penalty: Death (Suspended)
RA 9165 originally prescribed the Death Penalty for the sale of dangerous drugs. However, with the enactment of RA 9346 (The Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty), the sentence of death was downgraded to Reclusion Perpetua without the possibility of parole.
For a second-time offender, the court has no discretion to lower the penalty. The law mandates the maximum period of the penalty. While "Life Imprisonment" and "Reclusion Perpetua" are often used interchangeably in common parlance, in drug cases, "Life Imprisonment" is the specific term used by RA 9165, which does not carry the same accessory penalties or specific duration as Reclusion Perpetua but remains a terminal sentence for the offender.
4. Aggravating Circumstances
If the second offense involves any of the following, the legal position of the accused becomes even more untenable:
- Sale to Minors: If the victim of the sale is a minor or a mentally incapacitated person, the maximum penalty is automatically imposed.
- Proximate to Schools: If the sale occurs within 100 meters of a school, playground, or youth center.
- Drug Syndicates: If the offender is part of a group of three or more persons conspiring to sell drugs.
5. Summary Table of Penalties
| Offense | Principal Penalty | Monetary Fine | Administrative/Other Penalties |
|---|---|---|---|
| First Offense (Sale) | Life Imprisonment | ₱500k – ₱10M | Confiscation of proceeds; Criminal record |
| Second Offense (Sale) | Life Imprisonment (Strict) | ₱500k – ₱10M | Absolute disqualification from public office; No Plea Bargaining |
6. Procedural Rigidity: The Chain of Custody
Because the penalties for a second-time offender are so severe, the Philippine judiciary applies the Chain of Custody Rule (Section 21) with extreme scrutiny. For a second-time conviction to stick, the prosecution must prove:
- The inventory and photographing of the marijuana were done in the presence of the accused and mandatory witnesses (representative from the DOJ, the media, and an elected public official).
- The "marking" of the evidence was done immediately upon seizure.
- The integrity and evidentiary value of the marijuana remained intact from the point of seizure to the forensic laboratory to the court.
Failure to strictly follow Section 21 is often the only viable defense for an accused, as the substantive law (RA 9165) offers no mitigation for the act of selling marijuana once the identity of the corpus delicti is established.