Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ROGER VILLANUEVA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 180505 2010-06-29	PEOPLE v. MARIO MIGUEL Y BERNABE PEREZ, J.
In order to successfully prosecute an accused for illegal sale of drugs, the prosecution must be able to prove the following elements: (1) identities of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[14] Material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale had actually taken place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.[15] The term corpus delicti means the actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged.
	GR No. 184760 2010-04-23	PEOPLE v. PATERNO LORENZO Y CASAS PEREZ, J.
In order to successfully prosecute an accused for illegal sale of drugs, the prosecution must be able to prove the following elements: (1) identities of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[9] Material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale had actually taken place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.[10] The term corpus delicti means the actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged.
	GR No. 184957 2009-10-27	PEOPLE v. GRACE VENTURA Y NATIVIDAD CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The presumption of innocence[10] of an accused in criminal cases is a most fundamental constitutional right that must be upheld at all times. Applying the foregoing principle, it has been established that the burden of proof is a duty borne by the prosecution.[11] Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat, i.e., "He who asserts, not he who denies, must prove." With this in mind, conviction of an accused must stand on the weight and strength of the evidence of the prosecution and cannot rest on the weakness of the defense.[12]
	GR No. 182419 2009-02-10	PEOPLE v. WILFREDO ENCILA Y SUNGA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The defense did not adduce any evidence that could have shown that the policemen deviated from the regular performance of their duty and that could have overcome this presumption. Neither did the defense interpose any evidence to show that said police officers were not performing their duty properly when the buy-bust operation was conducted. When the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation have no motive to falsely testify against the accused, the courts shall uphold the presumption that they have performed their duties regularly.[44] And unless there is clear and convincing evidence to the contrary suggesting ill motive on the part of the police officers or deviation from the regular performance of their duties, their testimonies with respect to the operation deserve full faith and credit.[45] The presumption in favor of the prosecution witnesses, who are all police officers, taken together with the overwhelming evidence presented by the prosecution against the accused, should therefore stand.
	GR No. 181599 2008-08-20	PEOPLE v. SALVADOR DUMLAO Y AGLIAM YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
To sustain a conviction under this provision, the prosecution needs to establish sufficiently the identity of the buyer, seller, object and consideration; and, the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof. What is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the substance seized as evidence.[8] The commission of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs requires merely the consummation of the selling transaction, which happens the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller.[9] Settled is the rule that as long as the police officer went through the operation as a buyer and his offer was accepted by appellant and the dangerous drugs delivered to the former, the crime is considered consummated by the delivery of the goods.[10]