Scribd
Upload
75 views1 page

Criminal Case Digest: PEOPLE VS REYES

This criminal case digest summarizes People vs Reyes, where Reyes appealed his conviction of violating the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. While witnesses disagreed on the exact address where Reyes was arrested, the court found this minor and did not undermine their credibility. The trial court sentenced Reyes to life imprisonment and a fine according to the 1972 law. However, the law was later amended by R.A. No. 7659 to reduce penalties, and as this is more favorable to Reyes, he is entitled to benefit from the reduced penalty under the amended law.

Uploaded by

nikki
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
75 views1 page

Criminal Case Digest: PEOPLE VS REYES

This criminal case digest summarizes People vs Reyes, where Reyes appealed his conviction of violating the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. While witnesses disagreed on the exact address where Reyes was arrested, the court found this minor and did not undermine their credibility. The trial court sentenced Reyes to life imprisonment and a fine according to the 1972 law. However, the law was later amended by R.A. No. 7659 to reduce penalties, and as this is more favorable to Reyes, he is entitled to benefit from the reduced penalty under the amended law.

Uploaded by

nikki
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Criminal Case Digest: PEOPLE VS REYES

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

You might also like