Lawyerly

GR No. 203048

2014-08-13

PEREZ, J.

In every prosecution for illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must be sufficiently proved: (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.[13] All these elements were duly established.

GR No. 201111

2014-08-06

PEOPLE v. ALFREDO CERDON Y SANCHEZ

PEREZ, J.

In every prosecution for illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must be sufficiently proved: (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.[11] Indeed, all these elements were duly established. Appellant was caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu through a buy-bust operation conducted by members of the Special Operations Group of Mabalacat, Pampanga.

GR No. 199874

2014-07-23

PEOPLE v. PETER FANG Y GAMBOA

PEREZ, J.

In every prosecution for illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must be sufficiently proved: (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.[12] Indeed, all these elements were duly established. Appellant was caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu through a buy-bust operation conducted by members of the CIDG in Baguio City.

GR No. 193379

2011-08-15

CESAR D. CASTRO v. PEOPLE

VELASCO JR., J.

In People v. Isnani,[17] the Court likewise ruled the admissibility of shabu which was thrown outside the window by the appellant in that case.

GR No. 175319

2010-01-15

PEOPLE v. JOSELITO NOQUE Y GOMEZ

DEL CASTILLO, J.

In Criminal Case No. 01-189458, appellant is found guilty of violation of Section 15, Article III of RA 6425, as amended. We explained in People v. Isnani[17] that: Under Section 15, Article III in relation to the second paragraph of Sections 20 and 21 of Article IV of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Section 17 of R.A. No. 7659, the imposable penalty of illegal sale of a regulated drug (shabu), less than 200 grams, as in this case, is prision correccional to reclusion perpetua. Based on the quantity of the regulated drug subject of the offense, the imposable penalty shall be as follows:

GR NO. 177569

2007-11-28

PEOPLE v. RENATO DE GUZMAN Y MIRANDA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

We have ruled that peddlers of illicit drugs have been known, with ever increasing casualness and recklessness, to offer and sell their wares for the right price to anybody, be they strangers or not, what matters being not the existing familiarity between the buyer and the seller, or the time and venue of the sale, but the fact of agreement as well as the act constituting the sale and delivery of the prohibited drugs.[23] Drug peddlers have become exceedingly daring and openly defiant of the law.[24] Drug pushing when done on a small-scale belongs to those types of crimes that may be committed any time and at any place.[25]

GR No. 175326

2007-11-28

PEOPLE v. EDGARDO SANTIAGO Y GATDULA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

To secure a conviction for illegal sale of shabu, the following essential elements must be established: (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 thereof.[35] In prosecutions for illegal sale of shabu, 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.[36] In the case at bar, the prosecution was able to establish through testimonial, documentary and object evidence the said elements.

GR NO. 173795

2007-04-03

PEOPLE v. LOIDA R. SORIANO

TINGA, J.

In every prosecution for illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must be sufficiently proved: (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.[18] Indeed, all these elements were duly established. Appellants were caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu through a buy-bust operation conducted by members of the Mayor's Special Action Team/City Hall Detachment of Pasig City.

GR NO. 143705

2007-02-23

RUBY DIMACUHA Y EBREO v. PEOPLE

GARCIA, J.

prision mayor 98.51 grams to 147.75 grams reclusion temporal 147.76 grams to 199 grams reclusion perpetua The same ruling was applied in People v. Isnani[19] where the petitioner therein was found guilty for the crime of illegal sale of 0.60 gram of shabu.

GR NO. 169141

2006-12-06

PEOPLE v. ROMEO DEL MUNDO Y STA. MARIA

TINGA, J.

The elements necessary in every prosecution for the illegal sale of 'shabu' are: (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.[30] What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti. Corpus delicti is the body or substance of the crime, and establishes the fact that a crime has been actually committed. It has two elements, namely: (1) proof of the occurrence of a certain event; and (2) some person's criminal responsibility for the act.[31]

GR NO. 169141

2006-12-06

PEOPLE v. ROMEO DEL MUNDO Y STA. MARIA

TINGA, J.

In People v. Isnani,[42] we ruled that:The defenses of denial and alibi have been invariably viewed by us with disfavor for it can easily be concocted but difficult to prove, and they are common and standard defense ploys in most prosecutions arising from violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act.[43]

GR NO. 150756

2006-10-11

EDUARDO LEYSON v. PEDRO LAWA

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Considering the entirety of the testimonies of Batata and Jarmin, they declared that all the petitioners were responsible for the burning because of their collective acts, including those that transpired on September 1 and 2, 1996. By their collective acts, petitioners (except petitioner Leyson) conspired to burn the houses of private respondents. It is elementary that when there is a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all the conspirators, and a conspirator may be held as a principal even if he did not participate in the actual commission of every act constituting the offense. In conspiracy, all those who in one way or another helped and cooperated in the consummation of the crime are considered co-principals since the degree or character of the individual participation of each conspirator in the commission of the crime becomes immaterial. Thus, liability exists notwithstanding appellant's non-participation in every detail in the execution of the crime.[51] Thus, Batata testified that petitioners, who were in the company of petitioner Leyson, burned private respondents' houses. From the canal where he and Jarmin hid, they saw one of them burn the houses after firing their guns: Q Did you see the persons who fired their guns? A Yes, sir.

	GR No. 203048 2014-08-13	PEOPLE v. RUSTY BALA PEREZ, J.
In every prosecution for illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must be sufficiently proved: (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.[13] All these elements were duly established.
	GR No. 201111 2014-08-06	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO CERDON Y SANCHEZ PEREZ, J.
In every prosecution for illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must be sufficiently proved: (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.[11] Indeed, all these elements were duly established. Appellant was caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu through a buy-bust operation conducted by members of the Special Operations Group of Mabalacat, Pampanga.
	GR No. 199874 2014-07-23	PEOPLE v. PETER FANG Y GAMBOA PEREZ, J.
In every prosecution for illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must be sufficiently proved: (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.[12] Indeed, all these elements were duly established. Appellant was caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu through a buy-bust operation conducted by members of the CIDG in Baguio City.
	GR No. 193379 2011-08-15	CESAR D. CASTRO v. PEOPLE VELASCO JR., J.
In People v. Isnani,[17] the Court likewise ruled the admissibility of shabu which was thrown outside the window by the appellant in that case.
	GR No. 175319 2010-01-15	PEOPLE v. JOSELITO NOQUE Y GOMEZ DEL CASTILLO, J.
In Criminal Case No. 01-189458, appellant is found guilty of violation of Section 15, Article III of RA 6425, as amended. We explained in People v. Isnani[17] that: Under Section 15, Article III in relation to the second paragraph of Sections 20 and 21 of Article IV of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Section 17 of R.A. No. 7659, the imposable penalty of illegal sale of a regulated drug (shabu), less than 200 grams, as in this case, is prision correccional to reclusion perpetua. Based on the quantity of the regulated drug subject of the offense, the imposable penalty shall be as follows:
	GR NO. 177569 2007-11-28	PEOPLE v. RENATO DE GUZMAN Y MIRANDA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We have ruled that peddlers of illicit drugs have been known, with ever increasing casualness and recklessness, to offer and sell their wares for the right price to anybody, be they strangers or not, what matters being not the existing familiarity between the buyer and the seller, or the time and venue of the sale, but the fact of agreement as well as the act constituting the sale and delivery of the prohibited drugs.[23] Drug peddlers have become exceedingly daring and openly defiant of the law.[24] Drug pushing when done on a small-scale belongs to those types of crimes that may be committed any time and at any place.[25]
	GR No. 175326 2007-11-28	PEOPLE v. EDGARDO SANTIAGO Y GATDULA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
To secure a conviction for illegal sale of shabu, the following essential elements must be established: (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 thereof.[35] In prosecutions for illegal sale of shabu, 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.[36] In the case at bar, the prosecution was able to establish through testimonial, documentary and object evidence the said elements.
	GR NO. 173795 2007-04-03	PEOPLE v. LOIDA R. SORIANO TINGA, J.
In every prosecution for illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must be sufficiently proved: (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.[18] Indeed, all these elements were duly established. Appellants were caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu through a buy-bust operation conducted by members of the Mayor's Special Action Team/City Hall Detachment of Pasig City.
	GR NO. 143705 2007-02-23	RUBY DIMACUHA Y EBREO v. PEOPLE GARCIA, J.
prision mayor 98.51 grams to 147.75 grams reclusion temporal 147.76 grams to 199 grams reclusion perpetua The same ruling was applied in People v. Isnani[19] where the petitioner therein was found guilty for the crime of illegal sale of 0.60 gram of shabu.
	GR NO. 169141 2006-12-06	PEOPLE v. ROMEO DEL MUNDO Y STA. MARIA TINGA, J.
The elements necessary in every prosecution for the illegal sale of 'shabu' are: (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.[30] What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti. Corpus delicti is the body or substance of the crime, and establishes the fact that a crime has been actually committed. It has two elements, namely: (1) proof of the occurrence of a certain event; and (2) some person's criminal responsibility for the act.[31]
	GR NO. 169141 2006-12-06	PEOPLE v. ROMEO DEL MUNDO Y STA. MARIA TINGA, J.
In People v. Isnani,[42] we ruled that:The defenses of denial and alibi have been invariably viewed by us with disfavor for it can easily be concocted but difficult to prove, and they are common and standard defense ploys in most prosecutions arising from violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act.[43]
	GR NO. 150756 2006-10-11	EDUARDO LEYSON v. PEDRO LAWA CALLEJO, SR., J.
Considering the entirety of the testimonies of Batata and Jarmin, they declared that all the petitioners were responsible for the burning because of their collective acts, including those that transpired on September 1 and 2, 1996. By their collective acts, petitioners (except petitioner Leyson) conspired to burn the houses of private respondents. It is elementary that when there is a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all the conspirators, and a conspirator may be held as a principal even if he did not participate in the actual commission of every act constituting the offense. In conspiracy, all those who in one way or another helped and cooperated in the consummation of the crime are considered co-principals since the degree or character of the individual participation of each conspirator in the commission of the crime becomes immaterial. Thus, liability exists notwithstanding appellant's non-participation in every detail in the execution of the crime.[51] Thus, Batata testified that petitioners, who were in the company of petitioner Leyson, burned private respondents' houses. From the canal where he and Jarmin hid, they saw one of them burn the houses after firing their guns: Q Did you see the persons who fired their guns? A Yes, sir.

PEOPLE v. JOHN ISNANI Y ILINGAN