Scribd
Upload
52 views1 page

People of The Philippines V. Carlos Tranca G.R. No. 110357, 1994 Ponente: Davide, JR., J Facts

The accused was charged with violating the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 for selling methamphetamine hydrochloride without a license. A buy-bust operation was conducted where an undercover officer purchased shabu from the accused. The accused claimed he was framed and the drugs were planted on him during an altercation with police officers. However, the trial court found the prosecution witnesses credible and ruled the accused guilty based on the evidence presented. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling, stating that allegations of being framed must be proved with clear and convincing evidence.

Uploaded by

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

People of The Philippines V. Carlos Tranca G.R. No. 110357, 1994 Ponente: Davide, JR., J Facts

The accused was charged with violating the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 for selling methamphetamine hydrochloride without a license. A buy-bust operation was conducted where an undercover officer purchased shabu from the accused. The accused claimed he was framed and the drugs were planted on him during an altercation with police officers. However, the trial court found the prosecution witnesses credible and ruled the accused guilty based on the evidence presented. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling, stating that allegations of being framed must be proved with clear and convincing evidence.

Uploaded by

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

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.

CARLOS TRANCA 
G.R. No. 110357, 1994 
Ponente : Davide, JR., J 
 
FACTS : ​Tranca was charged with the violation of RA 6425, known as the Dangerous Drugs 
Act of 1972. The herein accused without a corresponding license, prescription or authority sold 
and delivered Methamphetamine Hydrocholoride (Shabu), a regulated drug. The accused pleaded 
not guilty, however, the prosecution presented witnesses for evidence and at the same time the 
accused present his sister, Clarita Chen as his witness. 
 
The evidence provided by the prosecution was that a confidential agent went to the 
office of the NCRNU and told them that a certain Jon Jon (accused) was selling shabu along 
Kalayaan Avenue, Makati. The group of police then executed a buy-bust operation and one of 
the team members represented himself as the poseur buyer. After proceeding to the target area, 
the informer spotted the accused and together with him was the poseur-buyer and told the 
accused that they were interested in buying shabu, and asked if there’s any available for sale. The 
accused affirmed that there is, and the buy-bust team bought stating “tapatan mo na lang itong 
piso ko” (piso - 100P) which then the accused gave the appropriate amount of shabu. They then 
signalled to start the arrest. The accused voluntarily surrendered the one bag of shabu and the 
100 P mark money. A chief chemist of the PNP examined the person and the 100 P bill used, 
and she discovered that the accused has fluorescent powder on his body.  
 
The contention of the accused, that he was framed and the police barged inside his house 
at around 11:40 PM while he was fixing a videocassette recorder and someone called him from 
the outside “joey”. There were four men who entered the premises and grabbed him and asked if 
he was Jon Jon and stated that “puede kailangan namin ng pera, kaya magturo ka na” and they 
also slapped him while stating that “gusto mo patayin ka namin” he pleaded to them to stop. It 
was denied. He was investigated and the police wiped the P100 bill all over his body. The Sister, 
corroborates the accused contention, declaring that she asked the police officers why is her 
brother treated badly and wanted her to accompany her brother but it was denied. Also the 
police asked her for P1000 for gasoline. The trial court found the accused guilty. 
 
ISSUE : ​Whether the accused is guilty of violating RA 6425, the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. 
 
RULING : ​Yes. If the issue is the credibility of the witness, the appellate courts will not disturb 
the findings of the trial court, since they have heard the testimony themselves. The contention of 
the defendant was nothing more than bare allegation; an allegation if one was framed it must be 
proved by clear and convincing evidence. 

You might also like