Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. LARRY LOPEZ

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 194721 2012-08-15	PEOPLE v. JOHN BRIAN AMARILLO Y MAPA PEREZ, J.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law in the determination of the appropriate penalty,[34] the trial court correctly imposed the following penalties: (1) in Criminal Case No. 06-750 for the crime of illegal sale of shabu, life imprisonment and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) considering that these are within the period and range of the fine prescribed by law;[35] and (2) in Criminal Case No. 06-751 for the crime of illegal possession of 0.33 gram of shabu, imprisonment for an indeterminate term of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to twenty (20) years, as maximum, and a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00), which is within the range of the amount imposable therefor.[36]
	GR No. 185011 2009-12-23	PEOPLE v. SPO3 SANGKI ARA Y MIRASOL VELASCO JR., J.
It is erroneous as well to argue that there was no probable cause to arrest accused-appellants. Probable cause, in warrantless searches, must only be based on reasonable ground of suspicion or belief that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed. There is no hard and fast rule or fixed formula for determining probable cause, for its determination varies according to the facts of each case.[17] Probable cause was provided by information gathered from the CI and from accused-appellants themselves when they instructed PO1 Ayao to enter their vehicle and begin the transaction. The illegal sale of shabu inside accused-appellants' vehicle was afterwards clearly established. Thus, as we have previously held, the arresting officers were justified in making the arrests as accused-appellants had just committed a crime when Ara sold shabu to PO1 Ayao.[18] Talib and Musa were also frisked for contraband as it may be logically inferred that they were also part of Ara's drug activities inside the vehicle. This inference was further strengthened by Musa's attempt to drive the vehicle away and elude arrest.
	GR No. 185164 2009-06-22	PEOPLE v. FREDERICK RICHIE TEODORO Y DELA CRUZ NACHURA, J.
In People v. Mateo[28] and People v. Larry Lopez,[29] the Court held that the period of imprisonment imposed on the accused should not be a straight penalty, but should be an indeterminate penalty. Thus, the trial court erred in imposing, and the CA in affirming, the straight penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day.