PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.

JUAN ASISLO y MATIO

G.R. No. 206224, 18 January, 2016, THIRD DIVISION, (Peralta, J.)

DOCTRINE OF THE CASE

FACTS

ISSUE

RULING
 MICHAEL SAN JUAN y CRUZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 177191, 30 May, 2011, SECOND DIVISION, (Nachura, J.)

DOCTRINE OF THE CASE

FACTS

ISSUE

RULING

The essential element of the charge is the movement of the dangerous drugs

from one point to another. In the case at bar, when the accused was arrested inside the

car, the car was not in transit, but rather the car was parked. Therefore, there is no

transport of dangerous drugs.

 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BELEN MARIACOS

G.R. No. 188611, 16, June 2010, SECOND DIVISION, (Nachura, J.)

DOCTRINE OF THE CASE

The constitutional proscription against warrantless searches and seizures

admits of certain exceptions. Aside from a search incident to a lawful arrest, a

warrantless search has been upheld in cases of a moving vehicle and the seizure

of evidence in plain view.

FACTS

A police officer received information that a baggage containing marijuana was

being boarded on a jeep. With the specifics of the baggage informed, the same police

officer boarded a jeep and saw a baggage with the same definition given in the

information. Upon checking the bag, the police officer confirmed that what the bag

contained was marijuana. When the jeep reached the destination, the police officer saw

that the same bag was being carried by respondent. Hence, he arrested the woman.

ISSUE

WON the arrest was valid.

RULING

YES. As held in People v. Bagita in a warrantless search is valid in cases of a

moving vehicle. The vehicle that carried the drugs was about to leave. It would be

unreasonable for him to acquire a search warrant from a court before conducting the

search and seizure.

 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RICO ENRIQUEZ

G.R. No. 214503, 22 June, 2016, THIRD DIVISION, (Perez, J.)

DOCTRINE OF THE CASE

The commission of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs like

shabu merely requires the consummation of the selling transaction which

happens the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller. The crime is

consummated at once at the point when the police officer has gone through the

operation as a buyer whose offer was accepted by the accused, followed by the

delivery of the dangerous drugs to the former

FACTS

A buy-bust operation was conducted. The informant met with respondent

Enriquez and introduced to the latter a police officer who disguised as a buyer. When

Enriquez handed the shabu to the buyer, the latter gave Php 500 to the former. After the

transaction, the buyer signaled that the transaction was complete and proceeded to

arrest Enriquez.

ISSUE

WON respondent is guilty of violating RA No. 9165

RULING

YES. The following are the requirements for the prosecution of illegal sale of

dangerous drugs: (1) proof that transaction took place and (2) presentation in court of

the corpus delicti, mainly the drugs. In the case at bar, all of the elements are present.
Respondent was caught red handed when it handed the shabu to the police officer, and

that the same drug from the transaction was the same drug presented as evidence

before the court.

 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JULIET PANCHO

G.R. No. 206910, 14 October, 2015, FIRST DIVISION, (Perez, J.)

DOCTRINE OF THE CASE

Constructive possession exists when the drug is under dominion and

control of the accused or when he has the right to exercise dominion and control

over the place where it is found.

FACTS

Police officers conducted a search in the house of respondent. The search

yielded plastic packets containing shabu which was recovered them in the confiscation.

She denies have possession of the drugs as she was sewing when the officers came

and searches her house.

ISSUE

WON respondent is guilty of RA No. 9165

RULING

YES. In Valleno v. People, the prosecution of illegal possession of drugs requires

the concurrence of three elements: (1) the accused was in possession of an item or an

object identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) that such possession is not authorized by

law; and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of

the drug.

In the case at bar, respondent is deemed to have constructive possession of the

drugs. Mere possession of a regulated drug per se constitutes prima facie evidence of
knowledge sufficient to convict the respondent, absent any satisfactory explanation of

such possession