This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-08-13 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| It can be gleaned from the above-quoted testimony that appellant acted in common concert with his co-accused in the illegal sale of shabu. They were both present during the entire transaction. Mala produced the shabu and handed it to the poseur-buyer in exchange for the boodle money. Appellant ordered Mala to count the money. When they were placed under arrest, the boodle money was recovered from appellant. Their acts clearly demonstrate the presence of conspiracy. 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.[15] | |||||
|
2013-11-27 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Upon review, the Court finds no cogent reason to reverse the conviction of accused-appellant Loks. Both the RTC and the CA courts correctly declared him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of shabu, as defined in Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. In People v. Seraspe,[16] the Court emphasized that in the prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the two essential elements of the offense must concur, namely: (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 therefor.[17] | |||||