Title
People vs. Li Yin Chu
Case
G.R. No. 143793
Decision Date
Feb 17, 2004
Li Yin Chu, a Chinese national, was convicted for selling 9,849.1 grams of shabu in a buy-bust operation. He claimed frame-up, but the Supreme Court upheld his reclusion perpetua sentence, citing credible prosecution evidence and lawful arrest.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 143793)

Facts and Charges

On July 4, 1999, in Quezon City, Li Yin Chu was accused of selling and delivering 9,849.1 grams of methylamphetamine hydrochloride, also known as shabu, to a poseur-buyer from the Philippine National Police (PNP). The prosecution claimed that Li utilized a blue Honda Civic vehicle during the transaction. Following his conviction, the trial court sentenced Li to reclusion perpetua and a fine of ₱5 million.

Proceedings and Evidence Presented by Prosecution

During the arraignment on August 6, 1999, the Appellant did not enter a plea, and the court recorded a plea of not guilty. The prosecution's witnesses included Police Senior Inspector Sonia Sahagun-Ludovico, SPO1 Ludem delos Santos, and Police Senior Inspector Romualdo Iglesia. The operation started when an informer alerted the police that Li was involved in drug dealing. The police subsequently set up a buy-bust operation, during which the Appellant was arrested after he allegedly confirmed the sale of shabu to the poseur-buyer, who was positioned as Mr. Nueva.

Defense's Argument

Li Yin Chu's defense included testimony from witnesses such as Jose Co and Police Senior Inspector Renato Verdote. The defense argued that Li was framed up by the police, asserting that he did not sell drugs but was arrested without a valid operation in place. Li argued that he was merely meeting someone for a business proposal and faced undue violence and extortion attempts from the arresting officers.

Trial Court's Ruling

The trial court heavily relied on the testimony of the poseur-buyer, Delos Santos, determining it credible and consistent. The court stated that the failure to exchange buy-bust money did not undermine the criminal culpability of the Appellant. The trial court dismissed claims of unlawful arrest and procedural violations asserted by the Appellant and upheld a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

Appeal and Issues Raised

Li appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence, the conduct of his arrest, alleged violations in police procedures, and the credibility of testimonies against him. He claimed that the circumstances of his arrest were unlawful, asserting that procedural lapses in the buy-bust operation invalidated the arrest.

Supreme Court's Decision

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision, stating that the credibility of the prosecution's witnesses was appropriate and deserved respect. The Court found that Li did not provide compelling evidence to support his claims of frame-up or unlawful arrest. It wa

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.