People v. Go
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On October 8, 1989, NARCOM agents conducted a test-buy operation on Edwin Go, purchasing two decks of shabu. Based on this, a buy-bust operation and search warrant were authorized. During the buy-bust operation, Edwin Go, through Alexander Go, sold two grams of shabu to a poseur-buyer. Simultaneously, a search of the residence was conducted under a warrant. During the search, 50 grams of shabu and paraphernalia were found in a drawer. Subsequently, Penelope Go voluntarily surrendered another package of shabu from her person. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu found Edwin Go guilty of selling shabu (violation of Sec. 15, Art. III, R.A. No. 6425) and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine. Penelope Go was found guilty of possession of shabu (violation of Sec. 16, Art. III, R.A. No. 6425) and sentenced to six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years imprisonment and a fine. Alexander Go was acquitted for insufficiency of evidence. Edwin Go and Penelope Go appealed. The Petition: Appellants Edwin Go and Penelope Go claimed the trial court erred in believing prosecution witnesses, in its findings regarding the search warrant, in failing to consider conflicting testimonies, and in discrediting their version of the facts.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in convicting Edwin Go and Penelope Go despite acquitting Alexander Go. Whether the trial court erred in believing that the search warrant was shown to the accused-appellants before the search. Whether the trial court erred in failing to consider conflicting testimonies and exculpatory evidence regarding the buy-bust operation and search. Whether the trial court erred in discrediting the version of the accused-appellants and their witnesses.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court, with modifications to the penalties imposed. Edwin Go was found guilty of selling shabu and Penelope Go was found guilty of possessing shabu. The fines imposed by the trial court were deleted, and the indeterminate sentence for both appellants was adjusted in accordance with R.A. No. 7659 and the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged contradiction in convicting Edwin and Penelope Go while acquitting Alexander Go: The Court held that the trial court did not contradict itself. Conviction or acquittal is based on whether the prosecution's evidence overcomes the presumption of innocence for each accused individually. The trial court found the evidence against Alexander Go insufficient because he was not a resident of the house and his participation was not sufficiently established, whereas the evidence against Edwin and Penelope Go was found to be sufficient beyond reasonable doubt. On whether the search warrant was shown to the accused-appellants: The Court found that the trial court did not err. This was supported by the "Certification of Re-conduct of Search" signed by Edwin and Penelope Go, which acknowledged the search was conducted pursuant to a duly issued search warrant. While the Court noted that the second paragraph of the Certification could be considered a self-incriminatory statement made without counsel, it was admissible to prove that the search warrant was brought to their attention and that no force or intimidation was used. Furthermore, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions supported the conclusion that the warrant was exhibited. On alleged inconsistencies and planted evidence: The Court found no material inconsistency in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses regarding the location of the arrest and the consummation of the sale. The Court also reasoned that conducting a buy-bust operation even with a search warrant was a precautionary measure, not an inconsistency, to counter claims of illegal seizure. The claim of planted evidence was dismissed, citing the positive testimony of witnesses and the "Receipt of Property Seized" which detailed the recovered items, including 60 grams of shabu from Penelope Go's person. On discrediting the appellants' version: The Court reiterated its respect for the trial court's findings on the credibility of witnesses, especially since the trial judge had the opportunity to observe their demeanor. The appellants' defense was primarily denial, which was insufficient to overcome the prosecution's evidence. The Court found no reason to depart from the general rule of according high respect to the trial court's appraisal of facts and credibility, particularly concerning the testimony of the appellants' son regarding Penelope Go's attire.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the conviction of Edwin Go for selling shabu and Penelope Go for possessing shabu, finding that the prosecution sufficiently proved their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court also modified the penalties imposed by the trial court in accordance with R.A. No. 7659 and the Indeterminate Sentence Law.