Case Digest (G.R. No. 150663)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Wu Tuan Yuan @ Peter Co, G.R. No. 150663, February 05, 2004, Supreme Court First Division, Carpio, J., writing for the Court.The appellant, Wu Tuan Yuan alias Peter Co, was charged by Information with selling 251.04 grams of shabu on or about August 15, 1999 in Manila, in violation of Article III, Section 15 of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659. He was arraigned on October 11, 1999 (with a Chinese interpreter and counsel) and pleaded not guilty. Trial followed in the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 41, in Criminal Case No. 99-175844.
The prosecution presented the buy-bust team from the Western Police District (WPD): PO2 Roberto Diaz (poseur buyer), SPO3 Edgardo Abaga (team leader), SPO1 Danilo Mante, SPO1 Antonio Castillo, SPO2 Alfredo De la Rosa, and others, plus security guards who observed the scene. According to the prosecution, a Chinese informant arranged a meeting with appellant at the Twin Dynasty Tower parking, the poseur buyer consummated the sale, appellant was apprehended, a plastic bag containing 251.04 grams of a white crystalline substance was seized, initialed by SPO3 Abaga, and a PNP forensic chemist (Arlene M. Valdez) later confirmed methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Appellant admitted being taken by men but denied any buy-bust or sale; he claimed he and his family were accosted, beaten, driven around, and extorted for P5,000,000 in a frame-up. Defense witnesses (including appellant’s wife and several security guards) testified to incidents suggesting police misconduct and a torn page from the tower’s security logbook, while two police members were presented as hostile witnesses. The prosecution rebutted with testimony (notably Frederick Lajorda) that impeached the defense’s narrative and upheld the police version.
On August 2, 2001, the trial court found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt and imposed reclusion perpetua and a P1,000,000 fine. Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning numer...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court err in assessing the credibility of the prosecution and defense witnesses?
- Was the prosecution’s evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence and to prove illegal sale of shabu beyond reasonable doubt?
- Was appellant’s defense of extortion and frame‑up (alleging police planting of evidence) believable and sufficie...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)