Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. LOURDERICO ORTIZ DARISAN

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 184599 2010-11-24	PEOPLE v. TEDDY BATOON Y MIGUEL VELASCO JR., J.
In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place; and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.[12]
	GR No. 188330 2010-08-25	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO J. ROSIALDA VELASCO JR., J.
In People v. Darisan,[7] the Court enumerated the elements of the crime of sale of dangerous drugs: In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must first be established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.
	GR No. 187483 2010-04-14	ARNEL BALARBAR Y BIASORA v. PEOPLE NACHURA, J.
Hence, we agree with the trial court, as affirmed by the CA, that the prosecution's evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner is guilty of Violation of Article II, Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165, having knowingly carried with him the plastic sachet of shabu without legal authority at the time he was caught.[13] The Court, however, modifies the penalty imposed. There being no mitigating or aggravating circumstance and in accordance with the Indeterminate Sentence Law, petitioner should be meted the indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months as maximum.[14] The Court affirms the P300,000.00 fine imposed by the trial court.
	GR No. 172873 2010-03-19	PEOPLE v. ROLDAN MORALES Y MIDARASA DEL CASTILLO, J.
In actions involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must first be established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.[64]
	GR No. 169195 2010-02-17	FRANCISCO APARIS Y SANTOS v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
Moreover, in the process of converting into written form the statements of living human beings, not only fine nuances but a world of meaning apparent to the judge present, watching and listening, may escape the reader of the translated words. Considering that this Court has access only to the cold and impersonal records of the proceedings, it generally relies upon the assessment of the trial court, which had the distinct advantage of observing the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses during trial.[18] Hence, their factual findings are accorded great weight, absent any showing that certain facts of relevance and substance bearing on the elements of the crime have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied.[19] No cogent reason exists for the Court to deviate from this rule.
	GR No. 183088 2009-09-17	PEOPLE v. DONATO CAPCO Y SABADLAB VELASCO JR., J.
In sum, proof beyond reasonable doubt, as found by the RTC and affirmed by the CA, was established against Capco. Finding no showing that certain facts of relevance and substance bearing on the elements of the crime have been overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied,[19] we affirm these courts' judgments.