This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2013-09-02 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| Simply put, the prosecution must establish that the illegal sale of the dangerous drugs actually took place together with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the dangerous drugs seized in evidence.[27] Central to this requirement is the question of whether the drug submitted for laboratory examination and presented in court was actually recovered from the accused.[28] | |||||
|
2013-02-06 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Simply put, the prosecution must establish that the illegal sale of the dangerous drugs actually took place together with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the dangerous drugs seized in evidence.[23] | |||||
|
2012-04-11 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant's contention is unmeritorious. It is settled that Section 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 does not invalidate operations on account of the the law enforcers' failure to maintain close coordination with the PDEA. Thus, in People v. Berdadero,[13] the Court noted that Section 86, as well as the Internal Rules and Regulations implementing the same, is silent as to the consequences of the failure on the part of the law enforcers to seek the authority of the PDEA prior to conducting a buy-bust operation. This Court consequently held that "this silence [cannot] be interpreted as a legislative intent to make an arrest without the participation of PDEA illegal or evidence obtained pursuant to such an arrest inadmissible."[14] The same conclusion was reached by this Court in People v. Roa,[15] People v. Mantalaba[16] and People v. Sabadlab.[17] | |||||
|
2012-02-15 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant's assertion has no merit. This Court has already held that the silence of the foregoing provision as to the consequences of the failure on the part of the law enforcers to seek the prior authority of the PDEA cannot be interpreted as a legislative intent to make an arrest without such PDEA participation illegal or evidence obtained pursuant to such an arrest inadmissible.[28] | |||||
|
2012-01-18 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| As this Court held in People v. Berdadero,[27] the foregoing provision, as well as the Internal Rules and Regulations implementing the same, "is silent as to the consequences of the failure on the part of the law enforcers to seek the authority of the PDEA prior to conducting a buy-bust operation x x x. [T]his silence cannot be interpreted as a legislative intent to make an arrest without the participation of PDEA illegal or evidence obtained pursuant to such an arrest inadmissible."[28] In the case at bar, even if we assume for the sake of argument that Narciso Sabadlab and accused-appellant Marcos Sabadlab y Narciso alias Bong Pango could have been different persons, the established fact remains that it was accused-appellant who was caught in flagrante delicto by the buy-bust team. Following the aforementioned jurisprudence, even the lack of participation of PDEA would not make accused-appellant's arrest illegal or the evidence obtained pursuant thereto inadmissible. | |||||