HERMINIO BUENAVENTURA VS. PEOPLE G.R. NO.

171578, AUGUST 8, 2007

FACTS: Appellant, Herminio Buenaventura y Recto, was charged before the RTC of Mandaluyong for illegal selling and possession of dangerous drugs. On April 11, 2002, SPO2 Manzano and PO1 Rivera reported to P/Insp. Palisoc that Demet whose real name is Herminio Buenaventura and a resident of 270 Daang Bakal Street, Mandaluyong City, was indeed selling marijuana. A buy-bust operation was scheduled. P/Insp. Palisoc, together with an informant went to the stated address while the other team members took strategic positions in the vicinity. P/Insp. Palisoc posed as buyer and was able to obtain marijuana from the appellant. Convinced by its smell, he signalled to the other team members, introduced himself to appellant as a police officer and arrested him. The other team members introduced themselves as police officers and searched the premises where they recovered the black travelling bag which contained nine (9) bricks of marijuana. The marijuana bricks were subjected to laboratory examination and gave positive results with a total weight of 8,757.346 grams. The RTC of Mandaluyong found appellant guilty of both charges and the appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court. ISSUE: Whether or not the court a quo erred in convicting accusedappellant. HELD: Petition is DENIED. Appellant was convicted of violating Section 5 of RA 6425, for the sale of marijuana. Jurisprudence has firmly entrenched the following elements in the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs: (1) identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and the consideration; and (2) delivery of the thing sold and the payment. These essential elements have been established in the present case. Appellant sold and delivered the marijuana to P/Insp. Palisoc posing as a buyer. It was seized and identified as a prohibited drug and subsequently presented as evidence. Appellant was aware that he was selling and delivering marijuana as he in fact asked P/Insp. Palisoc to sniff it upon handling the same. With respect to illegal possession of prohibited drugs, it was proven that appellant has knowingly carried with him the travelling bag which contained bricks of marijuana without legal authority at the time he was caught.

ihjabines crimcase_010612

PEOPLE VS. PHILIP DILAO G.R. NO. 170359, JULY 27, 2007
FACTS: On July 19, 2002 around 9 oclock in the evening, the (DEU)Unit, Caloocan City Police Station received information that an alias Philip was rampantly selling shabu along Pangako Street, Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City. The informer also identified the drug pusher as Philip Dilao y Castro. A buy-bust operation headed by PO3 Rodrigo Antonio was formed and PO2 Rolando de Ocampo posed as buyer. PO2 de Ocampo was accompanied by the informer and was able to get a plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance from the accused after handing him the marked money. After examining the contents of the plastic sachet, PO2 de Ocampo gave the pre-arranged signal to the other team members of the operation. Another plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance was recovered from the accused. The trial court found the accused guilty of violating Sections 5 (illegal sale) and 11 (illegal possession), Article II of RA 9165. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. ISSUE: Whether or not the court a quo gravely erred in convicting accused of the crime charged. HELD: The Decision of the CA and that of the trial court is AFFIRMED in all respects. The Court is convinced that the prosecutions evidence more than proved beyond reasonable doubt all the elements necessary in every prosecution for the illegal sale of shabu to wit: (1) identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and the consideration; and (2) delivery of the thing sold and the payment. What is material in a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction of sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti.

Likewise proven by the same quantum of evidence is the charge for violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 (illegal possession of shabu), accused having knowingly carried with him the plastic sachet of shabu without legal authority at the time he was caught during the buy-bust operation.

ihjabines crimcase_010612