This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-01-09 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| The evidence on record clearly established that appellant Chua was in possession of the plastic bags containing prohibited drugs without the requisite authority. Applying Section 3(j), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court,[11] a disputable presumption arises that she is the owner of the bag and its contents. It may be rebutted by contrary proof that the accused did not in fact exercise power and control over the thing in question, and did not intend to do so. The burden of evidence is thus shifted to the possessor to explain absence of animus possidendi.[12] Here, Chua failed to present evidence to rebut the presumption. She claims that she was a victim of frame-up and extortion by the narcotics agents of the NBI. This defense is viewed with disfavor for it can be easily concocted.[13] The defense of frame- up, often imputed to police officers, requires strong proof when offered as a defense, because of the presumption that public officers acted in the regular performance of their official duties.[14] | |||||
|
2012-09-05 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The elements necessary for a prosecution for violation of RA 9165 or sale of dangerous drugs 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.[13] What is material is the proof that the transaction actually took place, coupled with the presentation before the court of the corpus delicti.[14] | |||||
|
2012-04-11 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Under the Revised Penal Code, there is an attempt to commit a crime when the offender commences its commission directly by overt acts but does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.[25] This definition has essentially been adopted by this Court in interpreting Section 26 of Republic Act No. 9165. Thus in People v. Laylo,[26] we affirmed the conviction of the appellant therein and held that the attempt to sell shabu was shown by the overt act of appellant therein of showing the substance to the poseur-buyer. In said case, the sale was aborted when the police officers identified themselves and placed appellant under arrest. | |||||