Lawyerly

GR No. 189325

2011-06-15

VELASCO JR., J.

For the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs to prosper, the following elements must be proved: (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and its payment. The presence of these elements was proved by the trial court and later affirmed by the appellate court in the present case. The delivery of the illegal drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of marked money successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction. [15]

GR No. 192237

2011-01-26

PEOPLE v. JACQUILINE PAMBID Y CORTEZ

VELASCO JR., J.

Essentially, all the elements of the crime of illegal sale of drugs have been sufficiently established, i.e., (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 for it.[33] What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place. The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction.

GR No. 190179

2010-10-20

PEOPLE v. EDWARD R. FELICIANO

VELASCO JR., J.

Clearly, in this case, the buy-bust operation was proper. All the essential elements of the crime of illegal sale of drugs have been established, i.e., (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 for it.[24] What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place. The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction.

GR No. 185381

2009-12-16

PEOPLE v. DANILO CRUZ Y CULALA

VELASCO JR., J.

Furthermore, contrary to appellant's contentions, the minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are too insufficient or insubstantial to overturn the judgment of conviction against appellant, since those testimonies are consistent on material points. It has been settled that the witnesses' testimonies need only to corroborate one another on material details surrounding the actual commission of the crime.[16] Questions as to the lighting condition of the place where the buy-bust operation was conducted do not in any way impair the credibility of the witnesses.

GR No. 186497

2009-09-17

PEOPLE v. HASANADDIN GUIARA Y BANSIL

VELASCO JR., J.

In the prosecution of illegal sale of shabu, the essential elements have to be established, to wit: (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.[11] 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. The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction.

GR No. 186497

2009-09-17

PEOPLE v. HASANADDIN GUIARA Y BANSIL

VELASCO JR., J.

Furthermore, contrary to accused-appellant's contentions, the minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of the police officers are too insufficient or insubstantial to overturn the judgment of conviction against him, since those testimonies are consistent on material points. Time and time again, this Court has ruled that the witnesses' testimonies need only to corroborate one another on material details surrounding the actual commission of the crime.[18] Questions as to the exact street where the illegal sale was consummated do not in any way impair the credibility of the witnesses. To secure a reversal of the appealed judgment, such inconsistencies should pertain to that crucial moment when the accused was caught selling shabu, not to peripheral matters.[19]

GR No. 143793

2004-02-17

PEOPLE v. LI YIN CHU

CARPIO, J.

Likewise, the absence of a prior surveillance or test buy does not affect the legality of the buy-bust operation.[21] There is no textbook method of conducting buy-bust operations. The Court has left to the discretion of police authorities the selection of effective means to apprehend drug dealers.[22] Furthermore, if a police operation requires immediate implementation, time is of the essence and only hasty preparations are sometimes possible.[23] What is important is whether the speed of preparation compromised the rights of the accused.[24] The appellant has not satisfactorily shown how the speed of preparation endangered his rights.[25]

GR No. 148077

2004-02-16

PEOPLE v. WILLY YANG

QUISUMBING, J.

As to the non-presentation of the "buy-bust" money, neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any of the money used in a "buy-bust" operation.[38] It is sufficient to show that the illicit transaction did take place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti in evidence.[39] These were done, and were proved by the prosecution's evidence.

GR No. 147230

2003-04-29

PEOPLE v. REYNALDO REMERATA Y REMOQUILLO

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Under Article IV, Section 20 of RA 6425, as amended by RA 7625, the above penalty shall be imposed where the quantity of the methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu is 200 grams or more. In the case at bar, it was proved that appellant sold 205.55 grams of shabu. Therefore, the trial court was correct in sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua an a fine of P500,000.00. The lesser of the two indivisible penalties shall be imposed considering that there was neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstance, pursuant to Article 63 (2) of the Revised Penal Code.[15]

GR No. 140088

2002-11-13

PEOPLE v. PHOEBE ASTUDILLO

MENDOZA, J.

and the payment therefor. In the prosecution for the sale of dangerous drugs, the absence of marked money does not create a hiatus in the evidence for the prosecution as long as the sale of dangerous drugs is adequately proven and the drug subject of the transaction is presented before the court.[34] Neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any of the money used in a buy-bust operation. The only elements necessary to consummate the crime is proof that the illicit transaction took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.[35] Both were satisfactorily proved in the case at bar. With these circumstances, the defense of denial of accused-appellants cannot prevail. The defense of denial or frame-up, like alibi, has been viewed by the Court with disfavor for it can just as easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in most

	GR No. 189325 2011-06-15	PEOPLE v. TEOFILO RAGODON MARCELINO VELASCO JR., J.
For the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs to prosper, the following elements must be proved: (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and its payment. The presence of these elements was proved by the trial court and later affirmed by the appellate court in the present case. The delivery of the illegal drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of marked money successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction. [15]
	GR No. 192237 2011-01-26	PEOPLE v. JACQUILINE PAMBID Y CORTEZ VELASCO JR., J.
Essentially, all the elements of the crime of illegal sale of drugs have been sufficiently established, i.e., (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 for it.[33] What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place. The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction.
	GR No. 190179 2010-10-20	PEOPLE v. EDWARD R. FELICIANO VELASCO JR., J.
Clearly, in this case, the buy-bust operation was proper. All the essential elements of the crime of illegal sale of drugs have been established, i.e., (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 for it.[24] What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place. The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction.
	GR No. 185381 2009-12-16	PEOPLE v. DANILO CRUZ Y CULALA VELASCO JR., J.
Furthermore, contrary to appellant's contentions, the minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are too insufficient or insubstantial to overturn the judgment of conviction against appellant, since those testimonies are consistent on material points. It has been settled that the witnesses' testimonies need only to corroborate one another on material details surrounding the actual commission of the crime.[16] Questions as to the lighting condition of the place where the buy-bust operation was conducted do not in any way impair the credibility of the witnesses.
	GR No. 186497 2009-09-17	PEOPLE v. HASANADDIN GUIARA Y BANSIL VELASCO JR., J.
In the prosecution of illegal sale of shabu, the essential elements have to be established, to wit: (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.[11] 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. The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction.
	GR No. 186497 2009-09-17	PEOPLE v. HASANADDIN GUIARA Y BANSIL VELASCO JR., J.
Furthermore, contrary to accused-appellant's contentions, the minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of the police officers are too insufficient or insubstantial to overturn the judgment of conviction against him, since those testimonies are consistent on material points. Time and time again, this Court has ruled that the witnesses' testimonies need only to corroborate one another on material details surrounding the actual commission of the crime.[18] Questions as to the exact street where the illegal sale was consummated do not in any way impair the credibility of the witnesses. To secure a reversal of the appealed judgment, such inconsistencies should pertain to that crucial moment when the accused was caught selling shabu, not to peripheral matters.[19]
	GR No. 143793 2004-02-17	PEOPLE v. LI YIN CHU CARPIO, J.
Likewise, the absence of a prior surveillance or test buy does not affect the legality of the buy-bust operation.[21] There is no textbook method of conducting buy-bust operations. The Court has left to the discretion of police authorities the selection of effective means to apprehend drug dealers.[22] Furthermore, if a police operation requires immediate implementation, time is of the essence and only hasty preparations are sometimes possible.[23] What is important is whether the speed of preparation compromised the rights of the accused.[24] The appellant has not satisfactorily shown how the speed of preparation endangered his rights.[25]
	GR No. 148077 2004-02-16	PEOPLE v. WILLY YANG QUISUMBING, J.
As to the non-presentation of the "buy-bust" money, neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any of the money used in a "buy-bust" operation.[38] It is sufficient to show that the illicit transaction did take place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti in evidence.[39] These were done, and were proved by the prosecution's evidence.
	GR No. 147230 2003-04-29	PEOPLE v. REYNALDO REMERATA Y REMOQUILLO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Under Article IV, Section 20 of RA 6425, as amended by RA 7625, the above penalty shall be imposed where the quantity of the methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu is 200 grams or more. In the case at bar, it was proved that appellant sold 205.55 grams of shabu. Therefore, the trial court was correct in sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua an a fine of P500,000.00. The lesser of the two indivisible penalties shall be imposed considering that there was neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstance, pursuant to Article 63 (2) of the Revised Penal Code.[15]
	GR No. 140088 2002-11-13	PEOPLE v. PHOEBE ASTUDILLO MENDOZA, J.
and the payment therefor. In the prosecution for the sale of dangerous drugs, the absence of marked money does not create a hiatus in the evidence for the prosecution as long as the sale of dangerous drugs is adequately proven and the drug subject of the transaction is presented before the court.[34] Neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any of the money used in a buy-bust operation. The only elements necessary to consummate the crime is proof that the illicit transaction took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.[35] Both were satisfactorily proved in the case at bar. With these circumstances, the defense of denial of accused-appellants cannot prevail. The defense of denial or frame-up, like alibi, has been viewed by the Court with disfavor for it can just as easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in most

PEOPLE v. GERARDO GONZALES Y MARISTAÑES