Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 189325 2011-06-15	PEOPLE v. TEOFILO RAGODON MARCELINO VELASCO JR., J.
Citing People vs. Yang, [13] among other cases, the CA held that in an illegal sale of drugs, the crime is committed as soon as the sale transaction is consummated. It is sufficient to show that the illicit transaction took place and that the corpus delicti is presented in court as evidence.
	GR No. 172092 2009-12-16	PEOPLE v. VS.JOEY TION Y CABADDU VELASCO JR., J.
Anent Joey's assertion that the three PhP 100 bills were planted, suffice it to say that the presentation of "marked money" is not essential in the prosecution of the crime of selling dangerous drugs. The marked money used in the buy-bust operation is not indispensable in drug cases; it is merely corroborative evidence.[35] Neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any of the money used in a "buy-bust" operation.[36] Besides, payment of consideration is immaterial in the distribution of illicit drugs.[37]
	GR No. 156890 2004-07-13	PEOPLE v. LOLITA CASOLOCAN Y MANAYAGA CARPIO MORALES, J.
At any rate, in the case at bar, Fajardo, the poseur-buyer, was with the informant Grande who was known to appellant and who introduced Fajardo to appellant. It was not thus as if appellant was dealing with a stranger.[41] Hence, it is immaterial whether appellant as vendor made a prior investigation regarding Fajardo's "credentials" or his ability to pay.