PEOPLE VS
REYES
Criminal Case
Digest
Digested Cases
Criminal Law
This is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 156, Pasig, Metro Manila in Criminal Case No. 146B-D, finding
appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 15, Article III
of Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.
Appellant claims that there exists a major discrepancy in the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses with regard to the place where
appellant was arrested.
ISSUE: WON the lower court erred in rendering its decision
Although there is an inconsistency in the testimonies with
respect to the exact address of appellant, one witness saying that it was at
No. 104 Roces while the other saying that it was at No. 105 Roces, such
discrepancy is of minor importance and does not detract from the credibility of
the prosecution witnesses.
The trial court sentenced appellant to suffer "the
penalty of life imprisonment with all its accessory penalties and to pay a fine
of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) and to pay the costs" pursuant to
Section 4, Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 as amended by B.P.
Blg. 179. The said law, however, was further amended by R.A. No. 7659.
Under Section 17 of R.A. No. 7659, the penalty imposed for
the selling, dispensing, delivering, transporting or distributing of shabu of
less than 200 grams is prision correccional to reclusion
perpetua.
Under Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code, which has
suppletory application to special laws, penal laws shall be given retroactive
effect insofar as they favor the accused. Appellant is entitled to benefit from
the reduction of the penalty introduced by R.A. No. 7659.
