This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-01-26 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In every prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like marijuana, the following elements must be sufficiently proved to sustain a conviction therefor: (1) the identity of the buyer, as well as the seller, the object and consideration of the sale; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[35] What is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the dangerous drugs seized as evidence. We reiterate the meaning of the term corpus delicti which is the actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged.[36] The commission of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like marijuana, requires merely the consummation of the selling transaction, which happens the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller. Settled is the rule that as long as the police officer went through the operation as a buyer and his offer was accepted by appellant and the dangerous drugs delivered to the former; the crime is considered consummated by the delivery of the goods.[37] | |||||
|
2008-07-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Prior surveillance is not a pre-requisite for the validity of an entrapment operation, especially when the buy-bust team members were accompanied to the scene by their informant.[31] In the instant case, the arresting officers were led to the scene by poseur-buyer MADAC Operative Fariñas. It has also been ruled in People v. Tranca[32] that there is no rigid or textbook method of conducting buy-bust operations. Flexibility is a trait of good police work. The police officers may decide that time is of the essence and dispense with the need for prior surveillance. | |||||
|
2004-02-05 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| We have consistently held that prior surveillance of the suspected offender is not indispensable to the prosecution of drug cases. Whether or not the team conducted surveillance before the operation and what sort of information they gathered during the surveillance is of no moment. Suffice it to state that there is no requirement that surveillance should be conducted prior to a buy bust operation, especially when the informant brought the operatives to the scene[9] as what happened in this case. | |||||