This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2013-12-11 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| In this case, all the elements for the illegal sale of shabu were established. PO3 Ruiz, the poseur-buyer, positively identified appellant as the person he caught in flagrante delicto selling a white crystalline substance believed to be shabu in the entrapment operation conducted by the police and MADAC operatives. Upon receipt of the P200.00 buy-bust money, appellant handed to PO3 Ruiz the sachet containing 0.04 gram of white crystalline substance which later tested positive for shabu. "The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummated the buy-bust transaction x x x."[19] | |||||
|
2013-04-17 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In resolving issues involving the validity of a buy-bust operation, specifically the question of whether the government had induced the accused to commit the offense as charged, this Court usually finds it instructive to first distinguish between entrapment and instigation. This Court's distinction in the recent case of People v. Legaspi,[35] is elucidative, to wit: Entrapment is sanctioned by the law as a legitimate method of apprehending criminals. Its purpose is to trap and capture lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan. Instigation, on the other hand, involves the inducement of the would-be accused into the commission of the offense. In such a case, the instigators become co-principals themselves. | |||||
|
2013-02-06 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Manalao was positively identified by PO1 Solarta, who knew him even before the operation, as the one who sold the seized shabu subject of this case to the poseur-buyer. Manalao was caught in flagrante delicto in the entrapment operation conducted by the PNP of Tubod, Lanao del Norte. Moreover, the corpus delicti of the crime was also established with certainty and conclusiveness. Manalao handed to the poseur-buyer one deck of shabu upon his receipt of the P200.00 buy-bust money. In People v. Legaspi,[24] this Court said: The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummated the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and Legaspi. (Citation omitted.) | |||||
|
2013-01-09 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| In the prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the two essential elements are: "(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor."[31] Hence, evidence that establishes both elements by the required quantum of proof, i.e., guilt beyond reasonable doubt,[32] must be presented. Here, the said elements were duly proved by the prosecution. Carla and P/Chief Insp. Dandan positively identified appellant and her co-accused as the sellers of the contraband who sold the same in exchange for the marked money. The item was seized, marked and upon examination was identified as shabu, a dangerous drug. The same was subsequently presented in evidence. Moreover, Carla provided a detailed testimony as to the delivery and sale of shabu, viz: Q What time did you [reach] the area? A About 3:00 in the afternoon. Q After reaching the area at Manuela Food Court, what happened next? A And then the group positioned themselves inside the Food Court. Q How about x x x you and Cariño? A And we positioned ourselves [at] the next table. Q What happened after you positioned yourselves at the table? A And then Melba Espiritu and Aileen Seraspe arrived at around 5:00 in the afternoon. Q And what happened after Melba Espiritu and Aileen Seraspe arrived? A She asked me if I have already the money. Q What was your answer if any? | |||||
|
2013-01-09 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, a police officer's act of soliciting drugs from appellant during the buy-bust operation, or what is known as the "decoy solicitation," is not prohibited by law and does not invalidate the buy-bust operation.[48] In People v. Legaspi,[49] this Court pronounced that in a prosecution for sale of illicit drugs, any of the following will not exculpate the accused: "(1) that facilities for the commission of the crime were intentionally placed in his way; or (2) that the criminal act was done at the solicitation of the decoy or poseur-buyer seeking to expose his criminal act; or (3) that the police authorities feigning complicity in the act were present and apparently assisted in its commission."[50] Hence, even assuming that the PAOCTF operatives repeatedly asked her to sell them shabu, appellant's defense of instigation will not prosper. This is "especially true in that class of cases where the offense is the kind that is habitually committed, and the solicitation merely furnished evidence of a course of conduct. Mere deception by the police officer will not shield the perpetrator, if the offense was committed by him free from the influence or instigation of the police officer."[51] | |||||
|
2011-12-14 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Amansec was positively identified by the prosecution witnesses, as the person who sold to the poseur-buyer a heat-sealed plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. He had been caught red-handed in the entrapment operation conducted by the SDEU of the La Loma Police. Such positive identification must prevail over Amansec's uncorroborated and weak defense of denial, and unsubstantiated defense of frame-up.[59] | |||||