Stare Decisis
People v. Quiamanlon, G.R. No. 191198, Jan. 26, 2011
(1st Division), J. Velasco Jr.
Facts: That on or about the 15th day of June 2005, a buy-bust operation was conducted at KFC Welcome Rotonda. Accused-appellant unlawfully sold 0.12 gm. of white crystalline substance and she was found to be in possession and control of 0.27 gm. of the same substance. The accused-appellant was arrested and the buy-bust money was recovered from her by PO3 Magcalayo. PO3 Villamor recovered the other two (2) plastic sachets also from her. The latter then marked the said items in his possession. The seized items and the buy-bust money were turned over to PO3 Hernandez. The seized sachets were examined and yielded positive results for methylamphetamine hydrochloride.
Criminal Case Nos. Q-05-135151 and Q-05-135152 were filed against the accused appellant. RTC convicted accused-appellant for violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165 which was affirmed by the CA. Hence, accused-appellant filed an appeal to this Court.
Issues: Whether or not the proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the accused-appellant and the chain of custody was adequately established by the prosecution. Ruling: Yes. In the prosecution for the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs under Sec. 5, Art. II of RA 9165, the following elements must concur: (1) the identities of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it. It is worth noting that what is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually occurred, coupled with the presentation in court of the substance seized as evidence.
With respect to the charge of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Sec. 11, Art. II of RA 9165, the evidence of the prosecution has sufficiently established the elements of the violation, to wit: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to
(1st Division), J. Velasco Jr.
Facts: That on or about the 15th day of June 2005, a buy-bust operation was conducted at KFC Welcome Rotonda. Accused-appellant unlawfully sold 0.12 gm. of white crystalline substance and she was found to be in possession and control of 0.27 gm. of the same substance. The accused-appellant was arrested and the buy-bust money was recovered from her by PO3 Magcalayo. PO3 Villamor recovered the other two (2) plastic sachets also from her. The latter then marked the said items in his possession. The seized items and the buy-bust money were turned over to PO3 Hernandez. The seized sachets were examined and yielded positive results for methylamphetamine hydrochloride.
Criminal Case Nos. Q-05-135151 and Q-05-135152 were filed against the accused appellant. RTC convicted accused-appellant for violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165 which was affirmed by the CA. Hence, accused-appellant filed an appeal to this Court.
Issues: Whether or not the proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the accused-appellant and the chain of custody was adequately established by the prosecution. Ruling: Yes. In the prosecution for the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs under Sec. 5, Art. II of RA 9165, the following elements must concur: (1) the identities of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it. It is worth noting that what is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually occurred, coupled with the presentation in court of the substance seized as evidence.
With respect to the charge of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Sec. 11, Art. II of RA 9165, the evidence of the prosecution has sufficiently established the elements of the violation, to wit: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to