Case Digest (G.R. No. 108520)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Renato Sibug y del Castillo, G.R. No. 108520, January 24, 1994, the Supreme Court First Division, Davide, Jr., J., writing for the Court.An information dated 12 July 1991 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Kalookan City, Branch 126 charged accused-appellant Renato Sibug with violation of Section 15, Article III of R.A. No. 6425 for allegedly delivering and selling methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) without authority. Sibug pleaded not guilty and the case proceeded to trial.
The prosecution established a buy-bust operation conducted on 10 July 1991 by members of the District Anti-Narcotics Unit (DANU). P/Sgt. Martin De Guzman acted as the poseur-buyer, given two marked P100 bills; he approached Sibug, offered to buy shabu for P200, received a small aluminum-wrapped packet, then signaled his companions who arrested Sibug and recovered the marked money from him. The seized substance was later confirmed by the NBI Forensic Chemistry Division to be methamphetamine hydrochloride. Several policemen executed a joint affidavit recounting the buy-bust and arrest.
The defense presented Sibug, his wife and daughter, who testified that at about 3:00–3:30 p.m. the family was inside their house when four men forcibly entered, searched without a warrant and seized only P7.50 from the accused; they claimed the police then demanded P45,000 for his release and filed charges when the money was not paid. No extortion complaint was filed. Sibug and his family also maintained he was at home (an alibi) when the sale allegedly occurred.
On 22 June 1992 the RTC (Judge Cornelio W. Wasan, Sr.) found Sibug guilty beyond reasonable doubt, sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment and imposed a P20,000 fine, crediting the prosecution’s version and discrediting the defense as biased and self-serving. The RTC denied Sibug’s motion for reconsideration in an order dated 27 Ju...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was Sibug’s constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures violated because there was allegedly no buy-bust operation?
- Did the trial court err in crediting the prosecution’s allegedly contradictory and improbable testimonies and in rejecting the defense?
- Did the prosecution prove Sibug’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for unlaw...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)