This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2013-01-09 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| "An accepted badge of conspiracy is when the accused by their acts aimed at the same object, one performing one part and another performing another so as to complete it with a view to the attainment of the same object, and their acts though apparently independent were in fact concerted and cooperative, indicating closeness of personal association, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments."[39] As can be gleaned from appellant's above-quoted testimony as well as from the testimony of Carla as to what transpired during the actual buy- bust operation, appellant acted in common concert with her co-accused in the illegal sale of shabu. She cannot therefore isolate her act of merely accompanying Espiritu to the RFC Food Court or carrying the shabu since in conspiracy the act of one is the act of all.[40] "To be a conspirator, one need not participate in every detail of the execution; he need not even take part in every act or need not even know the exact part to be performed by the others in the execution of the conspiracy."[41] | |||||
|
2012-04-11 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| For the successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the following elements must be proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, object and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of the corpus delicti.[26] | |||||
|
2011-07-06 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| An accepted badge of conspiracy is when the accused by their acts aimed at the same object, one performing one part of and another performing another so as to complete it with a view to the attainment of the same object, and their acts although apparently independent were in fact concerted and cooperative, indicating closeness of personal association, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments.[53] | |||||
|
2010-08-16 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Under the provisions of said law, the sale of any dangerous drug, e.g. shabu, regardless of its quantity and purity, carries with it 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).[21] With the effectivity, however, 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. In this regard, the penalty applicable to Sembrano shall only be life imprisonment and fine without eligibility for parole. This Court thus sustains the penalty imposed by the RTC and later on affirmed by the Court of Appeals in Criminal Case No. Q-04-128370. | |||||