This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2014-08-18 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Appellant's argument that her warrantless arrest was not valid is untenable. We emphasize that the prosecution proved that appellant was apprehended after she exchanged the shabu in her possession for the marked money of the poseur-buyer. Having been caught in flagrante delicto, the police officers were not only authorized but were even duty-bound to arrest her even without a warrant.[23] | |||||
|
2011-09-28 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The record is also bereft of any evidence to show that appellant has the legal authority to possess the 20 more small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets of shabu. The rule is settled that possession of dangerous drugs constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi, which is sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of a satisfactory explanation of such possession. The burden of evidence is, thus, shifted to the accused to explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi.[45] Unfortunately, the appellant in the present case miserably failed to discharge that burden. Appellant was not able to satisfactorily explain his absence of knowledge or animus possidendi of the shabu recovered in his possession. | |||||
|
2011-06-01 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In addition, the record is bereft of any evidence to show that appellant had the legal authority to possess the six (6) small plastic sachets of shabu recovered from her. It has been jurisprudentially settled that possession of dangerous drugs constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of a satisfactory explanation of such possession. Hence, the burden of evidence is shifted to the accused to explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi.[50] In this case, appellant miserably failed to explain her absence of knowledge or animus possidendi of the shabu recovered from her. | |||||
|
2011-04-11 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It bears stressing that what is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti. In other words, the essential elements of the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs are: (1) the accused sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another; and (2) he knew that what he had sold and delivered was a prohibited drug.[13] In the present case, as aptly found by the RTC and affirmed by the CA, all these elements were satisfactorily proven by the prosecution, viz.: In the case at bar, We find that the prosecution was able to establish the fact of sale, starting from the time that SP03 Balolong received the information from their "police asset" up to the time that the buy-bust learn proceeded to the target location at Riza) Park where the actual sale happened. Noteworthy is the fact that even before the actual delivery of the prohibited drugs to the poseur-buyer, the "police asset" confirmed first with appellant, through text messages, the intended delivery of the said drugs with a value of P6,000.00. Thus, as far as the sale is concerned, the same was already perfected earlier through a confirmed text massage by appellant. The agreement between him and P02 Diego to meet later on at the agreed place was only for purposes of confirming the sale by the delivery of the prohibited drugs.[14] | |||||
|
2010-04-23 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In the prosecution for the illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the Court has reiterated the essential elements in People v. Pendatun, to wit: (1) the accused sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another; and (2) he knew that what he had sold and delivered was a prohibited drug.[31] All these elements were ably proven by the prosecution in the instant case. The accused-appellant sold and delivered the shabu for PhP 2,000 to SPO2 Jamila posing as buyer; the said drug was seized and identified as a prohibited drug and subsequently presented in evidence; there was actual exchange of the marked money and contraband; and finally, the accused-appellant was fully aware that she was selling and delivering a prohibited drug. As testified by SPO2 Jamila: Q: Now, at about 4:30 o'clock in the afternoon of September 6, 2002, where were you at that time, Mr. Witness? A: We were at the vicinity of Purok Ong Yiu, Butuan City, Sir. Q: What particular purok, if you can remember? A: At Purok 7, near the basketball court. Q: Who were your companions at that time? A: One PO1 Morales and our confidential agent, Sir. Q: When you arrived at the place as you already mentioned a while ago, what else transpired? A: Our confidential agent tried to contact one alias Darlene Quigod. Q: And under whose instruction was that? A: By myself, Sir. Q: Your instruction? A: Yes, Sir. Q: Was that confidential agent, a boy or a girl? A: A boy, Sir. Q: Was that confidential agent able to contact a certain Darlene? A: Yes, Sir. Q: And, what transpired next after he was able to contact Darlene? A: I was introduced to one Darlene that I am the buyer of shabu, and we agreed that she will sell the shabu at P1,000.00 per sachet. Q: Did you agree to the proposal? A: Yes, Sir, I ordered two (2) sachets. Q: So, at that time Darlene was there in your presence. A: Yes, Sir. Q: What transpired next after that? A: She asked permission that she will get the stuff and for us to wait and so we waited for her near the basketball court. Q: Did she arrive? A: After several minutes, she arrived, Sir. Q: Who was with her, if there was any? A: She was alone, Sir. Q: What transpired when she arrived? A: She handed to me the two (2) sachets and demanded the money, and I told her that I will first see the stuff whether it is a real one. Q: How much amount was she demanding as purchase price? A: It was P2,000, Sir. Q: Why is that P2,000? A: Because that is what we agreed that the price would be P1,000 per sachet. Q: Did she give you the alleged shabu? A: Yes, Sir. Q: And, what did you do when you were already in the possession of the two (2) sachets of shabu which is, according to you, worth P2,000 as per sachet is P1,000? A: I gave the pre-arranged signal to PO1 Morales and then he rushed up and introduced ourselves as PDEA agents and made the arrest. After which we informed of her constitutional rights. Q: By the way, at the time when the sachets of shabu were handed to you by Darlene, where was Morales situated? A: In a distance of about ten (10) to fifteen (15) meters, more or less, where the suspect could not detect him.[32] | |||||
|
2010-03-03 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| It bears stressing that what is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti. In other words, the essential elements of the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs are: (1) the accused sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another; and (2) he knew that what he had sold and delivered was a prohibited drug.[17] All these elements were satisfactorily proved by the prosecution in the instant case. Appellant sold and delivered the shabu for PhP 500 to PO1 Memoracion posing as buyer; the said drug was seized and identified as a prohibited drug and subsequently presented in evidence; there was actual exchange of the marked money and contraband; and finally, appellant was fully aware that he was selling and delivering a prohibited drug. | |||||
|
2010-01-25 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In the prosecution for the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the Court has reiterated the essential elements in People v. Pendatun, to wit: (1) the accused sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another; and (2) he knew that what he had sold and delivered was a prohibited drug.[11] Therefore, what is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of the corpus delicti.[12] Corpus delicti is the body or substance of the crime, and establishes the fact that a crime has actually been committed. It has two elements, namely: (1) proof of the occurrence of a certain event; and (2) some person's criminal responsibility for the act.[13] | |||||
|
2009-07-23 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In People v. Pendatun, the Court reiterated the essential elements of the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs: (1) the accused sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another and (2) he knew that what he had sold and delivered was a prohibited drug.[18] All these elements were ably proved by the prosecution in the instant case. The fact of sale and eventual delivery by Cortez, as seller, of a substance later identified as shabu to SPO2 Zipagan, as buyer who paid PhP 200 for it, had been established. The Court considers the ensuing vivid account of SPO2 Zipagan on this point: Q: When you arrived at the scene or the reported place, what transpired next, if any? | |||||