Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ALLAN NAZARENO Y CABURATAN

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 179344 2011-08-03	PEOPLE v. EDGARDO FERMIN Y GREGORIO PEREZ, J.
In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be proven: (1) that the transaction or sale took place; (2) that the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller were identified.[30] The presence of these elements is sufficient to support the trial court's finding of appellants' guilt.[31] What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited or regulated drug. The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and the accused.[32] The presentation in court of the corpus delicti -- the body or substance of the crime - establishes the fact that a crime has actually been committed.[33]
	GR No. 183676 2011-06-22	RUEL AMPATUAN 'ALIAS RUEL v. PEOPLE PEREZ, J.
In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be proven: (1) that the transaction or sale took place; (2) that the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller were identified. [19] The presence of these elements is sufficient to support the trial court's finding of appellants' guilt. [20] What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited or regulated drug. The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and the accused. [21] The presentation in court of the corpus delicti -- the body or substance of the crime - establishes the fact that a crime has actually been committed. [22]
	GR No. 191366 2010-12-13	PEOPLE v. ARNOLD MARTINEZ Y ANGELES MENDOZA, J.
This Court has repeatedly reversed conviction in drug cases for failure to comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, resulting in the failure to properly preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. Some cases are People v. Garcia,[39] People v. Dela Cruz,[40] People v. Dela Cruz,[41] People v. Santos, Jr.,[42] People v. Nazareno,[43] People v. Orteza,[44] Zarraga v. People,[45] and People v. Kimura.[46]
	GR No. 188570 2010-07-06	PEOPLE v. CHRISTOPHER DE MESA NACHURA, J.
In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be proven: (1) that the transaction or sale took place; (2) that the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller were identified.[15] The presence of these elements is sufficient to support the trial court's finding of appellants' guilt.[16] What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited or regulated drug. The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and the accused.[17] The presentation in court of the corpus delicti -- the body or substance of the crime - establishes the fact that a crime has actually been committed.[18]
	GR No. 186498 2010-03-26	PEOPLE v. RONALDO DE GUZMAN Y DANZIL NACHURA, J.
In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be proven: (1) that the transaction or sale took place; (2) that the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller were identified.[21] What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited or regulated drug. The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and the accused.[22] The presentation in court of the corpus delicti -- the body or the substance of the crime - establishes the fact that a crime has actually been committed.[23]
	GR No. 173480 2009-02-25	PEOPLE v. RUIZ GARCIA Y RUIZ BRION, J.
We reached the same conclusion in People v. Nazareno[27] and People v. Santos, Jr.,[28] and recently, in the cases of People v. Dela Cruz[29] and People v. De la Cruz[30] where we again stressed the importance of complying with the prescribed procedure. We also held that strict compliance is justified under the rule that penal laws shall be construed strictly against the government, and liberally in favor of the accused.[31]
	GR No. 175832 2008-10-15	PEOPLE v. SALVADOR SANCHEZ Y ESPIRITU BRION, J.
More recently, in Zarraga v. People, the Court held that the material inconsistencies with regard to when and where the markings on the shabu were made and the lack of inventory on the seized drugs created reasonable doubt as to the identity of the corpus delicti. The Court thus acquitted the accused due to the prosecution's failure to indubitably show the identity of the shabu. [Emphasis supplied] We reached the same conclusion in People v. Nazareno[34] and People v. Santos,[35] where we again stressed the importance of complying with the prescribed procedure.
	GR No. 181545 2008-10-08	PEOPLE v. MARK DELA CRUZ TINGA, J.
In People v. Nazareno,[29] the poseur-buyer failed to immediately place his markings on the seized drugs before turning them over to the police investigators. The police officer who placed his markings was not presented to testify on what actually transpired after the drugs were turned over to him. The Court equated these circumstances as failure on the part of the prosecution to prove the existence of the corpus delicti.[30]
	GR No. 181747 2008-09-26	PEOPLE v. NARCISO AGULAY Y LOPEZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
When arraigned on 23 September 2002, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty.[4] Thereafter, trial ensued.