G.R. Nos. 104357-58 September 26, 1994
People of the Philippines vs. Edwin Go and Penelope Go y Tabayo

FACTS

Accused-appellants Edwin Go and Penelope Go were charged in separate informations following a buy-bust operation and search of their residence. Edwin was charged with selling two grams of shabu (methamphetamine hydrochloride) to a poseur-buyer, while Penelope was charged with possession of sixty grams of shabu found during the subsequent search. The Regional Trial Court convicted both. Edwin was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine, while Penelope was given an indeterminate prison term and a fine. Their co-accused, Alexander Go, was acquitted. Appellants appealed, challenging the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, the validity of the search warrant’s service, and the consistency of the evidence.
The prosecution evidence established that after a confirmed test-buy, a NARCOM team secured a search warrant and conducted a buy-bust operation. Poseur-buyer Sgt. Inding transacted with Alexander Go at the appellants’ residence, purchasing shabu with marked money. The team then served the search warrant. During the search, conducted in the presence of appellants and barangay officials, more shabu was found in a drawer. The defense presented a different version, claiming the NARCOM agents forcibly entered without a warrant, planted evidence, and coerced signatures on a document.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of Edwin and Penelope Go beyond reasonable doubt for the crimes of sale and possession of dangerous drugs, respectively.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but modified the penalties. The Court found the prosecution’s version credible and consistent. The buy-bust operation was legitimate, and the search was conducted under a valid warrant shown to the appellants, with the recovery of evidence properly witnessed. The defense of frame-up was rejected for lack of clear and convincing evidence to show any improper motive on the part of the arresting officers. The minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses pertained to trivial details and did not undermine the core narrative of the sale and discovery of drugs.
However, applying the ruling in People v. Simon, which held that the penalties under the Dangerous Drugs Act should be subject to the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court modified the sentences. The life imprisonment and fines imposed by the trial court were set aside. Edwin Go was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six months of arresto mayor as minimum to two years and four months of prision correccional as maximum for the sale of two grams. Penelope Go was sentenced to six months of arresto mayor as minimum to four years and two months of prision correccional as maximum for possession of sixty grams. The fines were deleted.