PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. RENATO DE LOS REYES Y SOLTEO.
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 106874
- Promulgated: 1994-01-21
- Ponente: Melo, J.
Doctrine
A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment used to catch a malefactor in flagrante delicto and, though entrapment, is not a bar to prosecution and conviction.
Collateral matters such as the wrapper used or denomination of buy-bust money do not affect commission of the crime and are not vital to conviction.
The fiscal has discretion over what evidence to present; omission of booking sheet or arrest report does not necessarily enfeeble the prosecution if the submitted evidence suffices.
Facts
Accused-appellant was charged with violation of Sec. 15, Article III, Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act) in an information filed by the Assistant City Prosecutor.
The trial court found accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to life imprisonment, a P20,000 fine, costs, and ordered confiscation of 0.02 grams of shabu.
On appeal, accused raised a lone and general assignment of error that the trial court erred in finding him guilty and imposing the penalty.
Evidence included an ultraviolet examination showing fluorescent powder on accused's person; prosecution omitted showing distinguishing marks on the drug wrapper and did not present booking sheet/arrest report.
Issues
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the sale of shabu as charged.
Whether the buy-bust operation constituted unlawful entrapment that would bar prosecution.
Whether the accused was framed up by the apprehending police officers, relieving him of criminal liability.
Whether omission to show distinguishing marks on the drug wrapper or to present booking sheet/arrest report fatally undermines the prosecution's case.
Ruling
The Court AFFIRMED the appealed decision convicting accused for violation of Sec. 15, Art. III, RA 6425, and affirmed the imposed penalty; appeal denied.
A buy-bust operation in this case amounted to legitimate entrapment and does not bar prosecution or conviction.
Accused's allegation of frame-up was unproven; strong and convincing proof is required and is lacking here.
Failure to show distinguishing marks on the drug wrapper and omission to present booking sheet/arrest report are collateral or within the prosecutor's discretion and do not automatically invalidate the prosecution's case.
Keywords
G.R. No. 106874, Sec. 15, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, Dangerous Drugs Act, methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), regulated drug, poseur buyer, guilty beyond reasonable doubt, life imprisonment, buy-bust operation, physical, chemical and confirmatory tests, ultraviolet fluorescent powder, presumption of regularity, Section 5, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, prosecuted under the direction and control of the fiscal, prerogative of each party to determine which evidence to submit, People vs. Martinez, 205 SCRA 666 [1992], People vs. Carpio, 207 SCRA 569 [1992], People vs. Fulgarillas, 212 SCRA 76 [1992], illegal sale, accused appellant