This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2015-02-18 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Anent Criminal Case Nos. CBU-83577 and CBU-83578, the cases for illegal possession of shabu, both Dela Peña and Delima failed to overcome the presumption that they have knowledge or animus possidendi of the shabu found in their respective possession. Possession of dangerous drugs constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of a satisfactory explanation of such possession.[43] Except for their self-serving denial, the accused could not present any viable defense. The defense of denial or frame-up has been invariably viewed with disfavor for it can easily be concocted and is a common defense ploy in prosecutions for violation of R.A. 9165.[44] In the absence of clear and convincing evidence to substantiate it, said defense deserves outright rejection. | |||||
|
2013-09-25 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The inconsistencies alluded to by accused-appellant in the prosecution witnesses' testimonies are trifling and pertain to minor details which do not affect any of the elements of the crime charged. Inconsistencies and discrepancies in the testimony referring to minor details and not upon the basic aspect of the crime do not diminish the witnesses' credibility. More so, an inconsistency, which has nothing to do with the elements of a crime, is not a ground to reverse a conviction.[28] | |||||
|
2013-07-04 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Inconsistencies and discrepancies referring to minor details and not upon the basic aspect of the crime do not diminish the witnesses' credibility. If the cited inconsistency has nothing to do with the elements of a crime, it does not stand as a ground to reverse a conviction.[63] However, in this case, the material inconsistencies are furthered by inconsistencies of the police officers on minor details. Referring back to the narration of circumstances of the buy-bust operation, SPO2 Nagera was asked about the gender of the informant who went to their office to report about the illegal activities committed by Ningning. He readily answered that the informant was a female.[64] PO3 Ramos in turn, when asked to describe what happened in the afternoon before the buy-bust operation, testified that a male informant came to their office to report about a person selling illegal drugs.[65] | |||||
|
2013-06-13 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant is trying to make an issue of the alleged inconsistency between PO2 Lique's sworn affidavit and his testimony before the RTC. In his sworn affidavit, PO2 Lique averred that accused-appellant voluntarily emptied her pockets and handed over to the police the canister containing the 12 heat-sealed plastic sachets of shabu. When he testified before the trial court, PO2 Lique narrated that accused-appellant had refused to obey the order for her to empty her pockets so that PO2 Lique himself checked accused-appellant's pockets wherein he found the said canister, which he immediately confiscated. The inconsistency is trifling and does not affect any of the elements of the crime charged. Regardless of who emptied accused-appellant's pockets, the important fact was that the canister was actually found inside accused-appellant's pockets and in her possession. Inconsistencies and discrepancies in the testimony referring to minor details and not upon the basic aspect of the crime do not diminish the witnesses' credibility. More so, an inconsistency, which has nothing to do with the elements of a crime, is not a ground to reverse a conviction.[27] | |||||
|
2011-09-28 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| As to penalty. Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 clearly provides that the penalty for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu, regardless of its quantity and purity, shall be life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P5,000,000.00 to P10,000,000.00. In light, however, of the effectivity of Republic Act No. 9346,[66] the imposition of the supreme penalty of death has been proscribed.[67] Thus, the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P5,000,000.00 imposed upon appellant by the RTC and affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the offense of illegal sale of shabu is in order. | |||||
|
2011-08-31 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In the prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, on the other hand, it must be shown that: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or a regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.[15] In this case, all these elements were satisfactorily proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt through testimonial, documentary and object evidence presented during the trial. PO2 Antolin, the designated poseur-buyer, testified as to the circumstances surrounding the apprehension of the accused, and the seizure and marking of the illegal drugs recovered from the accused. [16] Then, SPO4 Sison corroborated PO2 Antolin's testimony and confirmed that all the confiscated items recovered from the accused were turned over to him as team leader.[17] | |||||