This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-10-19 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| And, since "reclusion perpetua is a lighter penalty than life imprisonment, and considering the rule that criminal statutes with a favorable effect to the accused, have, as to him, a retroactive effect",[51] the penalty imposed by the trial court upon petitioner is proper. Consequently, the Court sustains the penalty of imprisonment, which is reclusion perpetua, as well as the amount of fine imposed by the trial court upon petitioner, the same being more favorable to him. | |||||
|
2010-06-16 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Jurisprudence defines "transport" as "to carry or convey from one place to another."[30] There is no definitive moment when an accused "transports" a prohibited drug. When the circumstances establish the purpose of an accused to transport and the fact of transportation itself, there should be no question as to the perpetration of the criminal act.[31] The fact that there is actual conveyance suffices to support a finding that the act of transporting was committed and it is immaterial whether or not the place of destination is reached.[32] | |||||