Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ROMAN LACAP Y CAILLES

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 148668 2003-06-17	PEOPLE v. TONY PEDRONAN Y LIMMAYOG YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
A. It was used in some other operation, sir. Q. You turned it over to your superior, is that what you are saying? A. To my team leader, sir. Q. Who was team leader? A. At that time it was SPO2 Fernando Fernandez. Q. So you don't know now where is the buy-bust money? A. Yes, sir. COURT: (To witness) Q: You are telling this court that you went to a lot of trouble of having the buy-bust money marked with fluorescent powder by the NBI and yet when it came to the actual transaction you did not use it? A. Because the suspect, sir, brought with him not the exact weight of the marijuana. (Emphasis ours.)[34] More importantly, the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the prohibited drug which constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense, an essential requirement in drug-related cases.[35] In People v. Mapa,[36] appellant was acquitted after the prosecution failed to clarify whether the specimen submitted to the NBI for laboratory examination was the same one allegedly taken from him. In People v. Dismuke,[37] we ruled that the failure to prove that the specimen of marijuana examined by the forensic chemist was that seized from the appellant was fatal to the prosecution's case.
	GR No. 142773 2003-01-28	PEOPLE v. MARLON DELIM CALLEJO, SR., J.
When informed of the discovery of Modesto's cadaver, the local chief of police and SPO2 Jovencio Fajarito and other policemen rushed to the scene and saw the cadaver under the thick bushes. Pictures were taken of the cadaver.[5] Rita and Randy divulged to the police investigators the names and addresses of Marlon, Ronald, Robert, Leon and Manuel, whom they claimed were responsible for the death of Modesto. Rita and Randy were at a loss why the five malefactors seized Modesto and killed him. Rita and Randy gave their respective sworn statements to the police investigators.[6] Police authorities proceeded to arrest Marlon, Ronald, Robert, Manuel and Leon but failed to find them in their respective houses. The police officers scoured the mountainous parts of Barangays Immalog and Labayog to no avail.
	GR No. 146277 2002-06-20	PEOPLE v. ALBERT CASIMIRO Y SERILLO MENDOZA, J.
Third. The prosecution failed to establish the identity of the prohibited drug which constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense, an essential requirement in a drug-related case.[30]
	GR No. 144399 2002-03-20	PEOPLE v. DANILO RODRIGUEZ MENDOZA, J.
This contention is untenable. Art. II, §4 of R.A. No. 6425 punishes the sale, administration, delivery, distribution and transportation of prohibited drugs. It is immaterial that no payment was made to accused-appellants. As long as the entrapping officer went through the operation as a buyer and the appellants as sellers accepted his offer and the marijuana was delivered to the former, the crime is consummated by the delivery of the drugs.[24] We have already held that if (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 are shown, the accused can be convicted. In this case, the evidence for the prosecution establishes these conditions beyond reasonable doubt. The poseur buyer, PO1 Richard Lambino, and his back-up, PO1 Wendel Alfonso, positively identified accused-appellants as those who sold to them one block of marijuana dried leaves during the buy-bust operation.[25] There is a presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions.[26]
	GR No. 118073 2002-01-25	PEOPLE v. RENATO ORPILLA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The trial court correctly disregarded the testimony of defense witness Isidro Fabia. Indeed, it is strange and contrary to human experience that Isidro Fabia did not hear anything in the alleged thirty-minute conversation between the victim and accused appellant, considering that he was only one arm's length away from the two. For testimonial evidence to be believed, it must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but must also be credible in itself such as the common experience and observation of mankind can approve of as probable under the circumstances.[24]