#1 People vs.

Cuba
Facts: The Accused-appellant seeks the reversal of the decision of the RTC finding her
guilty of RA 6425. The other accused were acquitted.
That on April 29, 1997, the accused-appellant together with the other accused offer
for sale of marijuana fruiting tops to SPO 3 Jamisolamin. They were arrested through
entrapment.
The accused-appellant contends that there was no payment made, the contract of sale
was not consummated and inevitably the accused-appellant can not be convicted for
the illegal sale of prohibited drug.
Issue: Whether or not accused-appellant is guilty of RA 6425 despite the fact that
there was no contract of sale?
Held: Yes. Under Section 4, Art. II of R.A. 6425, otherwise known as The Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972, as amended, the act of selling or acting as broker in a sale of
marijuana and other prohibited drugs consummates the crime. More specifically, it
punishes the mere act of delivery of prohibited drugs after the offer to buy by the
entrapping officer has been accepted by the seller. Thus, contrary to the theory of
CAPARAS, proof of actual payment of money is not an indispensable requisite to
support a conviction for sale of prohibited drug. What is material in the prosecution
for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually
took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence.

#2 People vs. Montano

Facts: The accused-appellee filed an appeal from the decision of RTC finding him
guilty of violation of Art. III, Sec. 15 of Republic Act No. 6425.
That on January 22, 1996, the accused-appellee sell, distribute and deliver 229. 7
grams of shabu.
The accused-appellee on his defense contends that the prohibited drug did not
originate from him but from Hector Tinga. There was also a violation of his right to
equal protection laws and the buy-bust operation have been resorted to harass, extort
and abuse.
Issue: Whether or not the accused-appellee is only an accomplice?
Held: The evidence shows that accused-appellant was indeed a principal in the
commission of the crime charged in this case. Though it was Tinga who produced the
two plastic packets of shabu, it was accused-appellant who delivered the same to the
buy-bust team. He was the one who asked for payment, who received the same, and
who counted it in the presence of the buy-bust team. It is undeniable that accusedappellant directly participated in the illegal sale of the shabu. Art. 18 of the Revised
Penal Code defines an accomplice as a person who, not being a principal in the
commission of a felony, cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or
simultaneous acts. On the other hand, Art. 17 thereof provides that principals are: (1)
those who take a direct part in the execution of the act; (2) those who directly force or
induce others to commit it; and (3) those who cooperate in the commission of the
offense by another act without which it would not have been accomplished.

#3 People vs. Bongcarawan

Facts: The accused-appellee filed an appeal from the decision of the RTC finding him
guilty of Sec. 16 Art. III of Republic Act 6425.
That on March 13, 1999, Security officer receive a complaint from Canoy a passenger
that her jewelry was missing. Canoy is suspecting one of her co-passenger
Bongcarawan. Bongcawaran was bodily searched but no jewelry was found. The
security requested to open his suit case and found a brown bag and small plastic
packs containing eight (8) packs of shabu weighing approximately 400 grams.
That the accused-appelle contends that the security personnel forcibly opened the
suitcase and found packs of white crystalline substance inside which they suspected
to be shabu.
Issue: Whether or not the drug confiscated to him is inadmissible evidence the fact
that the security personnel forcibly opened the suitcase and it is a violation of his
constitutional rights?
Held: In the case of People v. Marti [i]n the absence of governmental interference,
liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be invoked against the State. The
constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and seizures applies as a
restraint directed only against the government and its agencies tasked with the
enforcement of the law. The baggage of the accused-appellant was searched by the
vessel security personnel. It was only after they found shabu inside the suitcase that
they called the Philippine Coast Guard for assistance. The search and seizure of the
suitcase and the contraband items was therefore carried out without government
intervention, and hence, the constitutional protection against unreasonable search
and seizure does not apply.

#22 People vs. Abadies

FACTS: The accused-appellee filed an appeal from the decision of the RTC finding him
guilty of four counts of violation of RA 7160. That on July 1, 1997 the accused
actuated by lewd design committed acts of lasciviousness upon his daughter 17 years
old by kissing, mashing her breast and touching her private parts against her will and
consent. The other incidents committed on July 2, 3, and 26, 1997. It was during
these short of periods of time while his common law wife was out of the house that the
abuses took place. The accused wrote her a letter from his detention cell asking for
forgiveness. Accused had a defense of denial and alibi.
ISSUE: Whether or not the court a quo erred in finding the prosecution's version more
credible and in convicting him despite the implied pardon given by complainant.
Whether or not there is a factual basis for the trial court to consider his plea of
forgiveness in his letter to complainant as an implied admission of guilt.
HELD:
1. No. Complainant's testimony was straightforward and free from contradiction as to
any material point. We also accord great weight to the findings of the trial court having
heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during
trial. On the other hand, accused-appellant's simple denial of the crime charged is
inherently weak. It is negative evidence which cannot overcome the positive
testimonies of credible witnesses. For accused-appellants denial to prevail it must be
buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability and there is none
2. The Court disagrees, evidently, no one would ask for forgiveness unless he had
committed some wrong and a plea for forgiveness may be considered as analogous to
an attempt to compromise. Under the circumstances, accused-appellants plea of
forgiveness should be received as an implied admission of guilt.