Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. WILFREDO ENCILA Y SUNGA

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 201156 2014-01-29	PEOPLE v. JOSELITO MORATE Y TARNATE LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Illegal sale of dangerous drugs is committed when the sale transaction is consummated,[45] that is, upon delivery of the illicit drug to the buyer and the receipt of the payment by the seller. In this case, the RTC and the Court of Appeals both found beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-appellant, as seller, sold 1.0291 grams of marijuana to the poseur-buyer, PO1 Manamtam, for P100.00. The former handed the latter three sachets of marijuana after the latter paid the P100.00 consideration for the sale. Under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, such illegal sale of dangerous drugs, regardless of quantity, is punishable with the penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00). In light of the effectivity of Republic Act No. 9346, otherwise known as "An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines," the imposition of the supreme penalty of death has been proscribed. Consequently, the penalty applicable to the accused-appellant shall only be life imprisonment, without eligibility for parole, and fine.[46] Thus, the accused-appellant was correctly meted the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).
	GR No. 197250 2013-07-17	PEOPLE v. REYNALDO “ANDY” SOMOZA Y HANDAYA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Illegal sale of dangerous drugs is committed when the sale transaction is consummated,[49] that is, upon delivery of the illicit drug to the buyer and the receipt of the payment by the seller. While the marked money may be used to prove payment, it is not material in proving the commission of the crime. What is material is the proof that the sale transaction actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti,[50] the dangerous drug subject of the sale.[51] Here, the prosecution has adequately established the occurrence of a sale transaction between accused-appellant and PO1 Bautista, and the sachet containing the contraband subject of the sale was presented in court.
	GR No. 186227 2011-07-20	PEOPLE v. ALLEN UDTOJAN MANTALABA PERALTA, J.
In connection therewith, the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, was also correct in finding that the appellant is equally guilty of violation of Section 11 of RA 9165, or the illegal possession of dangerous drug. As an incident to the lawful arrest of the appellant after the consummation of the buy-bust operation, the arresting officers had the authority to search the person of the appellant. In the said search, the appellant was caught in possession of 0.6131 grams of shabu. In illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the elements are: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. [22]
	GR No. 192816 2011-07-06	PEOPLE v. JOEL GASPAR Y WILSON CARPIO, J.
In Criminal Case No. 12840-D, all these elements were present. PO1 Soreta testified that he was the poseur-buyer in the buy-bust operation conducted and identified Gaspar as seller of the plastic sachet containing shabu in exchange for a consideration of P200.00. The sale was consummated after the exchange of buy-bust money and plastic sachet occurred. In People v. Encila,[20] we held that the delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction between the entrapment officers and the accused. The crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs is committed as soon as the sale transaction is consummated.
	GR No. 185011 2009-12-23	PEOPLE v. SPO3 SANGKI ARA Y MIRASOL VELASCO JR., J.
Owing to the special circumstances surrounding the drug trade, a buy-bust operation has long been held as a legitimate method of catching offenders. It is a form of entrapment employed as an effective way of apprehending a criminal in the act of commission of an offense.[15] We have ruled that a buy-bust operation can be carried out after a long period of planning. The period of planning for such operation cannot be dictated to the police authorities who are to undertake such operation.[16] It is unavailing then to argue that the operatives had to first secure a warrant of arrest given that the objective of the operation was to apprehend the accused-appellants in flagrante delicto. In fact, one of the situations covered by a lawful warrantless arrest under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court is when a person has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense in the presence of a peace officer or private person.
	GR No. 186380 2009-10-12	PEOPLE v. MANUEL RESURRECCION VELASCO JR., J.
Inconsistencies referring to who the informant talked to at the NBI office, how many informants there were, and how many vehicles were used, are not material. These matters were not necessary to establish the elements of the crimes committed.[13] The inconsistencies do not detract from the elements of the offense of illegal sale of drugs, which the prosecution adequately established.[14]
	GR No. 186139 2009-10-05	PEOPLE v. LEONARDO RUSIANA Y BROQUEL VELASCO JR., J.
Jurisprudence dictates that conviction can be had in a prosecution for illegal sale of regulated or prohibited drugs if the following elements are present: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it. What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti of the crime.[9] We hold that these elements have been satisfied by the prosecution's evidence.
	GR No. 184174 2009-04-07	PEOPLE v. REYNALDO CAPALAD Y ESTO VELASCO JR., J.
The accused in a prosecution for drug pushing or possession has to contend with the credibility contest that ensues between the accused and the police.[13] In scrutinizing this issue, we are guided by the rule that findings of the trial courts, which are factual in nature and which involve the credibility of witnesses, are accorded respect when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts, or speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. This rule is applied more rigorously where said findings are sustained by the CA.[14]