This case has been cited 17 times or more.
|
2015-03-11 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| This Court has consistently ruled that 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, the object and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[18] In other words, there is a need to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused actually sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another, and that the former indeed knew that what he had sold and delivered to the latter was a prohibited drug.[19] To reiterate, what is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, plus the presentation in court of corpus delicti as evidence.[20] On the other hand, we have adhered to the time-honored principle that for illegal possession of regulated or prohibited drugs under Section 11 of the same law, the prosecution must establish the following elements: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object, which is identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.[21] | |||||
|
2015-02-18 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| The elements necessary for the prosecution of a charge for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 are: (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[20] | |||||
|
2015-01-14 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The elements for the illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 13 of R.A. No. 9165 are the same as those for the violation of Section 11 of the law: (1) possession by the accused of an item or object identified to be a prohibited or dangerous drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; (3) the free and conscious possession of the drug by the accused,[15] with the additional element that (4) the accused possessed the prohibited or dangerous drug during a social gathering or meeting, or in the company of at least two persons. | |||||
|
2014-09-10 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| By way of emphasis, we have adhered to the time-honored principle that for illegal possession of regulated or prohibited drugs, the prosecution must establish the following elements: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object, which is identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.[21] In the case at bench, all these elements were duly established by the prosecution. As aptly pointed out by the appellate court: Despite the presence of such inconsistencies, the categorical fact remains, as proven by the implementing police officers, that there were indeed illegal drugs and paraphernalia recovered from the house of the accused-appellant where he was the sole occupant. With positive and straight-forward declarations, the police officers proved that the seized items composing the twenty (20) sachets marked with SW-DB-1 to SW-DB-20 and the shabu paraphernalia one (1) disposable lighter, one (1) tin foil strip, two (2) used candles and one (1) long tissue paper were the same illicit items recovered during the implementation of the search warrant issued against accused-appellant. What assumes primary importance in drug cases is the prosecution's proof, to the point of moral certainty, that the prohibited drug presented in court as evidence against the accused is the same item recovered from his possession. In the same vein, the testimonial evidence coincides and concurs with the pieces of object evidence presented before the Court affording greater strength to the case of the prosecution.[22] (Emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2014-07-23 |
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] | |||||
|
2014-06-23 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| The rule on the chain of custody under R.A. 9165,[36] together with its implementing rules and regulations (IRR),[37] expressly demands the identification of the persons who handled the confiscated items for the purpose of duly monitoring the authorized movements of the illegal drugs and/or drug paraphernalia from the time these items were seized from the accused until the time they were presented in court.[38] | |||||
|
2014-04-02 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| As against the accused-appellants' denial, an inherently weak defense, the evidence presented by the prosecution deserves credence. The following elements of illegal sale of shabu were sufficiently established during the trial: (a) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for the thing.[29] During a planned buy-bust operation, SI Tumalon served as a poseur-buyer and was able to successfully purchase packs of shabu weighing 195 grams, more or less, from the accused-appellants for a total consideration of P180,000.00. The payment was handed to the accused-appellants by SI Tumalon. An examination conducted by the Forensic Chemistry Section, Central Visayas Regional Office, NBI in Capitol Site, Cebu City, confirmed that the packs contained methylamphetamine hydrochloride.[30] There was nothing on record which would indicate that the substance purchased by SI Tumalon from the accused-appellants during the buy-bust operation was different from the subject of the NBI Forensic Chemistry Section's examination, and that which was eventually presented by the prosecution in court to establish their case against the accused-appellants. | |||||
|
2014-01-22 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The rule on chain of custody under the foregoing enactments expressly demands the identification of the persons who handle the confiscated items for the purpose of duly monitoring the authorized movements of the illegal drugs and/or drug paraphernalia from the time they are seized from the accused until the time they are presented in court.[25] Moreover, as a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered in evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.[26] | |||||
|
2013-10-09 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| In the instant case, Guzon was accused of violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 which prohibits the sale of illegal drugs. The elements of the crime include: (a) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for the thing.[38] The Court explained in People v. Bautista[39] that in drug-related prosecutions, the State bears the burden not only of proving these elements of the offense under R.A. No. 9165, but also of proving the corpus delicti, the body of the crime. The dangerous drug is itself the very corpus delicti of the violation of the law.[40] | |||||
|
2013-06-26 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Proceeding from the above, we find that the essential requisites for illegal sale of shabu were all present in the instant case. These are: "(a) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for the thing."[25] The prosecution has likewise complied with the following material requirements: (1) proof that the transaction or sale actually took place and (2) presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence."[26] | |||||
|
2013-06-19 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| To secure a conviction for illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must be present: "(a) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for the thing."[18] The prosecution must show that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation of the corpus delicti as evidence.[19] | |||||
|
2013-03-20 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| To secure a conviction for illegal sale of shabu, the prosecution must prove the presence of the following essential elements: "(a) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for the thing."[16] It is necessary to establish that the transaction or sale actually took place, and to bring to the court the corpus delicti as evidence.[17] | |||||
|
2013-02-27 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| To secure a conviction for illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must be present: "(a) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for the thing.[19] It is material to establish that the transaction or sale actually took place, and to bring to the court the corpus delicti as evidence.[20] As to the crime of illegal possession of shabu, it is necessary to prove the following essential elements of the crime: "(a) the accused [was] in possession of an item or object that is identified to be a prohibited or dangerous drug; (b) such possession [was] not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug."[21] And, in the prosecution of these offenses, the primary consideration is to ensure that the identity and integrity of the seized drugs and other related articles has been preserved from the time they were confiscated from the accused until their presentation as evidence in court.[22] | |||||
|
2013-02-06 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| The rule on chain of custody under R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rules and regulations (IRR) expressly demands the identification of the persons who handle the confiscated items for the purpose of duly monitoring the authorized movements of the illegal drugs and/or drug paraphernalia from the time they are seized from the accused until the time they are presented in court.[24] We have held, however, that the failure of the prosecution to show compliance with the procedural requirements provided in Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR is not fatal and does not automatically render accused-appellant's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible.[25] What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[26] As long as the chain of custody remains unbroken, the guilt of the accused will not be affected.[27] | |||||
|
2012-09-17 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Parenthetically, we also consider as significant the appellants' failure during the trial to raise and prove any attendant irregularity affecting the integrity and identity of the shabu seized and presented in court.[16] We emphasize in this regard that noncompliance with the prescribed procedure does not automatically render the seizure of the dangerous drug void and the evidence inadmissible.[17] The law itself lays down certain exceptions to the general compliance requirement "as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team," the seizure of and the custody over the dangerous drugs shall not be rendered void and invalid.[18] From the evidence presented, the prosecution proved that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the shabu seized from the appellants had been duly preserved under the precautionary handling measures the police undertook after the shabu was confiscated. | |||||
|
2012-08-15 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| To prove illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must be present: "(a) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for the thing.[18] And, to secure conviction, it is material to establish that the transaction or sale actually took place, and to bring to the court the corpus delicti as evidence.[19] | |||||
|
2012-07-04 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Thus, present in the instant case are the following requisites for illegal sale of shabu: "(a) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; xxx (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for the thing[; and (c)] the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence."[14] Likewise present are the essential elements of illegal possession of a dangerous drug, to wit: "(a) [that] the accused is in possession of an item or object that is identified to be a prohibited or dangerous drug; (b) [that] such possession is not authorized by law; and (c) [that] the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug."[15] | |||||