Case Digest (G.R. No. 101310)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Romeo Bay y Atienza @ Omeng, G.R. No. 101310, May 28, 1993, the Supreme Court Third Division, Melo, J., writing for the Court.The prosecution charged accused-appellant Romeo Bay y Atienza with violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act for allegedly selling methamphetamine hydrochloride (“shabu”) on January 23, 1991, in Pasay City. The buy‑bust team consisted of Cpl. Tomas Abatayo (team leader), Pat. Ronnie Miranda and Pfc. Eduardo Cabria (poseur‑buyer). An informant named Gina accompanied the team; Pfc. Cabria carried a marked One Hundred Peso bill as buy‑bust money. According to the police, Pfc. Cabria entered appellant’s house, handed the marked bill and received a transparent plastic bag; on the prearranged signal the team arrested appellant, recovered the marked bill from his right pocket, and found paraphernalia (aluminum foil, improvised burners and tooters) on a center table. The confiscated substance was later examined by the NBI and identified as methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Appellant presented a different account: he claimed he was at home reading when several policemen entered without a search warrant, asked for a certain “Gil,” searched the premises, dragged him to a cock‑fighting area, then took him to the precinct and demanded P10,000 for his release. He denied selling drugs and asserted an alibi; his wife testified for the defense.
At the Regional Trial Court, Branch 113, Pasay City, appellant pleaded not guilty; after trial the RTC, on July 23, 1991, convicted him beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and a P20,000 fine, with forfeiture of the shabu and paraphernalia. The trial court credited the three police officers’ testimony, rejected the alibi (noting that alibis supported only by a spouse lack convincing force) and found no proof of bad faith or planting of evidence.
Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning errors challenging the credibility of the police witnesses, the plausibility of the buy‑bust operation, alleged inconsistencies in the prosecution’s testimony, undue reliance on presumption of regula...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the prosecution prove appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt in light of alleged inconsistencies and the credibility of the police witnesses?
- Was the buy‑bust operation tainted by impermissible instigation/entrapment so as to bar conviction?
- Was the penalty imposed by the trial court (reclusion perpetua) correct und...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)