This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2004-06-03 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| The commission of the offense of illegal sale of regulated drugs requires merely the consummation of the selling transaction. In a "buy-bust" operation, such as in the case at bar, what is important is the fact that the poseur-buyer received the shabu from the appellants and that the same was presented as evidence in Court. In short, proof of the transaction suffices.[1] | |||||
|
2004-02-17 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| As between the positive declaration of prosecution witnesses and the negative statements of appellant, the former deserves more credence and weight.[19] In this case, prosecution witness Delos Santos positively identified appellant as the person who transported, sold and delivered the shabu. Furthermore, the records are bereft of any proof showing that the police officers were maliciously motivated in arresting appellant. | |||||
|
2001-10-17 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| There are eight (8) instances where a warrantless search and seizure is valid. They are: (1) consented searches;[57] (2) as an incident to a lawful arrest;[58] (3) searches of vessels and aircraft for violation of immigration, customs, and drug laws;[59] (4) searches of moving vehicles;[60] (5) searches of automobiles at borders or constructive borders; (6) where the prohibited articles are in "plain view;"[61] (7) searches of buildings and premises to enforce fire, sanitary, and building regulations; and (8) "stop and frisk" operations.[62] | |||||