Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 161 views

    People v. Lorenzo, G.R. 184760

    Uploaded by

    Vincent Quiña Piga
    1) The accused, Paterno Lorenzo, was arrested during a buy-bust operation for selling shabu to a police informant in exchange for marked money. 2) Tests confirmed the plastic sachets seized from the accused contained 2.04 and .20 grams of shabu. 3) The Court acquitted the accused, finding that the prosecution did not establish all elements of illegal drug sale and possession beyond reasonable doubt, as the arresting team did not follow inventory procedures required by law.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People v. Lorenzo, G.R. 184760

    Uploaded by

    Vincent Quiña Piga
    161 views1 page
    1) The accused, Paterno Lorenzo, was arrested during a buy-bust operation for selling shabu to a police informant in exchange for marked money. 2) Tests confirmed the plastic sachets seized from the accused contained 2.04 and .20 grams of shabu. 3) The Court acquitted the accused, finding that the prosecution did not establish all elements of illegal drug sale and possession beyond reasonable doubt, as the arresting team did not follow inventory procedures required by law.

    Original Description:

    ISSUE: Did the prosecution establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt?

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The accused, Paterno Lorenzo, was arrested during a buy-bust operation for selling shabu to a police informant in exchange for marked money. 2) Tests confirmed the plastic sachets seized from the accused contained 2.04 and .20 grams of shabu. 3) The Court acquitted the accused, finding that the prosecution did not establish all elements of illegal drug sale and possession beyond reasonable doubt, as the arresting team did not follow inventory procedures required by law.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    161 views1 page

    People v. Lorenzo, G.R. 184760

    Uploaded by

    Vincent Quiña Piga
    1) The accused, Paterno Lorenzo, was arrested during a buy-bust operation for selling shabu to a police informant in exchange for marked money. 2) Tests confirmed the plastic sachets seized from the accused contained 2.04 and .20 grams of shabu. 3) The Court acquitted the accused, finding that the prosecution did not establish all elements of illegal drug sale and possession beyond reasonable doubt, as the arresting team did not follow inventory procedures required by law.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    People v. Lorenzo G.R. No.

    184760, April 23, 2010


    FACTS: On September 10, 2003 at around 1 oclock in the morning the team of PO1 Noel Pineda conducted a buy-bust operaton in Daangbakal, Dulongbayan I, San Mateo, Rizal and through a police informant, the accused received the marked P100 bills in exchange for a sachet of crystalline substance later identified as shabu, after which the accused, Paterno Lorenzo was arrested for selling methamphetamine hydrochloride in heat-sealed sachets. The plastic sachets seized in accuseds possession contained 2.04 and .20 grams of shabu. The RTC in a decision handed October 5, 2005 found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165 for selling .20 and 2.04 grams of shabu and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of PHP 500,000 for the former and imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day to 12 years and 6 months with a fine of PHP 300,000 for the latter. The CA affirmed the lower courts decision on June 14, 2007. ISSUE: Did the prosecution establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt? RULING: No, the Court ruled that the prosecution was not able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Court stipulated that in order to prosecute illegal sale of drugs the following must be present: (1) identities of the buyer and seller must be established, (2) transaction must have occurred, (3) corpus delicti must be presented as evidence. In addition, for illegal possession of drugs the following elements must be present: (1) the accused must be in possesson of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug, (2) such possession is unauthorized by law, (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed said drug. Furthermore, the arresting team failed to follow the provisions of Sec. 21, Art. II of RA 9165 requiring that evidence be inventoried at the place where it was found and the arrest was conducted in the presence of the accused, photographed in the presence of the accuseds representative/counsel in the presence of a media representative, the DOJ, and any elected public official who will sign on the inventory of seized items. The totality of evidence failed to support the accuseds conviction for violation of Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165. The decision of the CA dated June 14, 2007 is reversed and set aside and the accused-appellant is acquitted of the crime charged and released immediately.

    You might also like