Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. REYNA BATALUNA LLANITA

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 205889 2015-02-04	PEOPLE v. SANDER DACUMA Y LUNSOD PEREZ, J.
The following requisites are necessary in order to successfully prosecute an offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and consideration of the sale; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[9]
	GR No. 202687 2015-01-14	PEOPLE v. JERIC PAVIA Y PALIZA PEREZ, J.
As held by this Court in the case of People v. Llanita:[19]
	GR No. 190623 2014-11-17	PEOPLE v. ROMMEL ARAZA Y SAGUN DEL CASTILLO, J.
We find the statement of PO1 Talacca to be credible. The narration of the incident by a police officer, "buttressed by the presumption that they have regularly performed their duties in the absence of convincing proof to the contrary, must be given weight."[19] His testimony, the physical evidence and the facts stipulated upon during trial were consistent with each other. Araza also failed to adduce evidence showing that he had legal authority to possess the seized drugs. Thus, there is no reason to disturb the findings of the RTC as affirmed by the CA.
	GR No. 205741 2014-07-23	PEOPLE v. REYMAN ENDAYA Y LAIG PEREZ, J.
To secure a conviction for illegal sale of shabu, the following essential elements must be established: (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration for the sale; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material in the prosecution of an illegal sale of dangerous drugs is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation of the corpus delicti in court as evidence.[32] The commission of illegal sale merely requires the consummation of the selling transaction, which happens the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller. As long as a police officer or civilian asset went through the operation as a buyer, whose offer was accepted by the appellant, followed by the delivery of the dangerous drugs to the former, the crime is already consummated. In the case at bar, the prosecution has amply proven all the elements of the drug sale with moral certainty.[33]
	GR No. 190621 2014-02-10	PEOPLE v. GLENN SALVADOR Y BALVERDE DEL CASTILLO, J.
Prosecutions for illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation. Their narration of the incident, "buttressed by the presumption that they have regularly performed their duties in the absence of convincing proof to the contrary, must be given weight."[27] Here, the CA affirmed the RTC's ruling that the testimonies and facts stipulated upon were consistent with each other as well as with the physical evidence. Thus, there is no justification to disturb the findings of the RTC, as sustained by the CA, on the matter.
	GR No. 196973 2013-07-31	PEOPLE v. RUPER POSING Y ALAYON PEREZ, J.
As held in People v. Llanita[40] as cited in People v. Ara:[41]
	GR No. 195528 2013-07-04	PEOPLE v. JOSE CLARA Y BUHAIN PEREZ, J.
The clear inconsistency in the presentation of facts is fatal. It creates doubts whether the transaction really occurred or not. Though Joel's denial as a defense is weak, such cannot relieve the prosecution the burden of presenting proof beyond reasonable doubt that an illegal transaction actually took place.[60]
	GR No. 191391 2013-06-19	PEOPLE v. BENEDICT HOMAKY LUCIO PEREZ, J.
In People v. Llanita[51] citing People v. Unisa,[52] the Court ruled that in order to successfully prosecute an offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu, the following elements must first be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and consideration of the sale; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.
	GR No. 187496 2013-02-06	PEOPLE v. MALIK MANALAO Y ALAUYA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In People v. Llanita and Buar,[30] this Court elucidated on the concept of "chain of custody" and, quoting People v. Kamad,[31] enumerated the different links that must be proven to establish it: "Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody was made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition.