This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2011-11-23 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, there is no indication that the arresting team and the other prosecution witnesses were actuated by improper motives, prevaricating just to cause damnation to him. Thus, their affirmative statements proving accused-appellant's culpability must be respected and must perforce prevail.[35] | |||||
|
2011-06-15 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| This Court held that neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any of the money used in a buy-bust operation, much less is it required that the boodle money be marked. The only elements necessary to consummate the crime is proof that the illicit transaction took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence. [45] Both elements were satisfactorily proven in the present case. There is also no rule that requires the police to use only marked money in buy-bust operations. This Court has in fact ruled that failure to use marked money or to present it in evidence is not material since the sale cannot be essentially disproved by the absence thereof. Its non-presentation does not create a hiatus in the prosecution's evidence for as long as the sale of the illegal drugs is adequately established and the substance itself is presented before the court. [46] | |||||
|
2010-06-16 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Appellant's alleged lack of knowledge does not constitute a valid defense. Lack of criminal intent and good faith are not exempting circumstances where the crime charged is malum prohibitum, as in this case.[27] Mere possession and/or delivery of a prohibited drug, without legal authority, is punishable under the Dangerous Drugs Act.[28] | |||||
|
2009-12-16 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Settled is the rule that a prior surveillance of the suspected offender is not a prerequisite for the validity of a buy-bust operation, especially so if the buy-bust team is accompanied by the informant,[9] as in this case. We have held that when time is of the essence, the police may dispense with the need for prior surveillance.[10] | |||||
|
2004-05-19 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The testimony on the actual delivery of the shabu is vital in identifying the real offender in this case. The Court cannot convict an accused based on the testimony of a lone eyewitness whose testimony poses more questions than answers. Did Chief Inspector Muksan actually see Hairatul in possession of the red Jollibee plastic bag containing the shabu? To whom was the red Jollibee plastic bag handed Chief Inspector Muksan or the informant? Who was the real poseur-buyer Chief Inspector Muksan or the informant? If Chief Inspector Muksan did not witness the actual delivery of the shabu but only saw the red Jollibee plastic bag containing the shabu already in the possession of the informant, how could he be certain that the shabu came from Hairatul? In the prosecution for the sale of illegal drugs, what is important is that the poseur-buyer received the drugs from the accused and the prosecution presented the same as evidence in court.[49] In this case, the prosecution failed to prove clearly that the red Jollibee plastic bag containing the shabu was in Hairatul's possession. Trial courts should always require precise and convincing testimony in cases involving buy-bust operations lest an innocent person suffer the severe penalties for drug offenses.[50] | |||||
|
2003-01-16 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| There is no requirement that prior surveillance should be conducted before a buy-bust operation can be undertaken especially when, as in this case, the policemen are accompanied to the scene by their civilian informant.[28] Prior surveillance is not a prerequisite for the validity of an entrapment or a buy-bust operation,[29] there being no fixed or textbook method for conducting one.[30] We have held that when time is of essence, the police may dispense with the need for prior surveillance.[31] | |||||
|
2002-12-17 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| before the court.[53] The exact denomination of the genuine bills that had been placed on top of the boodle money is not a critical fact. It is enough that the prosecution proved that money had been paid to appellants for the sale and the delivery of shabu.[54] On the basis of such evaluation and analysis, the trial court clearly committed no error in according greater weight to the positive identification and forthright declarations made by the prosecution witnesses.[55] Bare denials cannot prevail over their | |||||