This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-01-09 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| It is material in illegal sale of dangerous drugs that the sale actually took place. What consummates the buy-bust transaction is the delivery of the drugs to the poseur-buyer and, in turn, the seller's receipt of the marked money.[7] While the parties may have agreed on the selling price of the shabu and delivery of payment was intended, these do not prove consummated sale. Receipt of the marked money, whether done before delivery of the drugs or after,[8] is required. | |||||
|
2004-02-17 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Appellant then harps on the poseur-buyer's failure to present to appellant the buy-bust money in exchange for the shabu. No law or rule of evidence requires the simultaneous exchange of the buy-bust money and the shabu. The well-entrenched principle is that the accused commits the crime of illegal sale drugs as soon as he consummates the sale transaction, whether payment precedes or follows delivery of the drug sold.[30] | |||||
|
2003-01-20 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| Under the "plain view" doctrine, unlawful objects within the plain view of an officer who has the right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented in evidence. Nonetheless, the seizure of evidence in plain view must comply with the following requirements: (a) a prior valid intrusion in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties; (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be where they are; (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent; and (d) the plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without further search.[27] | |||||