Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

HERMINIO BUENAVENTURA Y RECTO v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 191198 2011-01-26	PEOPLE v. NENE QUIAMANLON Y MALOG VELASCO JR., J.
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. Thus, the burden of evidence is shifted to the accused to explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi.[32] In the instant case, Quiamanlon failed to discharge such burden.
	GR No. 172605 2010-11-22	PEOPLE v. EVANGELINE LASCANO Y VELARDE PERALTA, J.
The essential elements to be established in the prosecution of illegal sale of marijuana are as follows: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[16] What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence.[17] We find these elements duly proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.
	GR No. 172092 2009-12-16	PEOPLE v. VS.JOEY TION Y CABADDU VELASCO JR., J.
In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following must be proved: (1) that the transaction took place; (2) that the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller were identified.[24] With respect to illegal sale of marijuana, its essential elements are: (1) identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (2) delivery of the thing sold and the payment.[25]
	GR No. 177741 2009-08-27	PEOPLE v. VS.WILLIE RIVERA CARPIO MORALES, J.
Buenaventura v. People,[9] citing People v. Bagsit,[10] teaches, however: x x x It is long settled that where the accused, by his voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court, as shown by the counsel-assisted plea he entered during the arraignment and his active participation in the trial thereafter, voluntarily waives his constitutional protection against illegal arrests and searches. We have consistently ruled that any objection concerning the issuance or service of a warrant or a procedure in the acquisition by the court of jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before he enters his plea, otherwise, the objection is deemed waived. (Citations omitted; underscoring supplied)