Case Digest (G.R. No. 100985)
Facts:
This case, G.R. No. 100985, involves the People of the Philippines as the plaintiff-appellee and Teresita Aranda y Doria as the accused-appellant. The events transpired on August 17, 1990, in Kalookan City, Metro Manila. Teresita Aranda was charged with violating Section 15, Article III of the Dangerous Drugs Act (R.A. No. 6425, as amended) for selling and delivering methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as "shabu," to Benito Villanueva, a tricycle driver. The prosecution alleged that around 5:00 PM, Pfc. Alexander Corpuz received a tip regarding a tricycle driver, identified by his plate number, who was going to meet Aranda to purchase drugs. A police team, led by Pfc. Corpuz, was formed to verify this tip. Upon arriving at the location, the police observed Aranda handing over small plastic bags, which they suspected contained illegal drugs, to Villanueva.
As the police approached, Villanueva was allegedly about to dispose of the plastic bags. Upon interventi
Case Digest (G.R. No. 100985)
Facts:
On August 17, 1990, in Kalookan City, Teresita Aranda y Doria was charged with violating Section 15, Article III of R.A. No. 6425, as amended, for allegedly delivering to Benito Villanueva two small white transparent plastic bags containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (“shabu”). The cases against appellant and Villanueva were tried jointly, and appellant pleaded “not guilty,” while Villanueva pleaded “guilty.” The Regional Trial Court, Branch 124, Kalookan City, found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced her to life imprisonment with a fine of P20,000.00. On appeal, appellant assailed the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and the alleged lack of proof of a sale and delivery.Issues:
- Whether the trial court erred in relying on the prosecution witnesses despite inconsistencies in their testimonies.
- Whether the prosecution proved the essential elements of “sell and deliver” and appellant’s knowledge that the drug was dangerous.
- Whether the testimony of Benito Villanueva should have been disregarded despite not being declared hostile as required by the rules.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)