[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
236 views2 pages

05 People v. Armando Potolin - G.R. 220759

Armando Potolin was found guilty of possessing and selling marijuana. On April 20, 2006, Potolin sold four teabags of marijuana weighing a total of 4.02 grams to an undercover police officer for 200 pesos. The officer identified Potolin in court as the seller. Chemical analysis confirmed the substance was marijuana. The court found the prosecution had proven the elements of the crime: the identities of buyer and seller, the object and consideration exchanged, and the delivery of the item sold. Potolin's claim that he would not sell to a stranger was not persuasive, as drug dealers are known to sell to anyone for the right price.

Uploaded by

Denise
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
236 views2 pages

05 People v. Armando Potolin - G.R. 220759

Armando Potolin was found guilty of possessing and selling marijuana. On April 20, 2006, Potolin sold four teabags of marijuana weighing a total of 4.02 grams to an undercover police officer for 200 pesos. The officer identified Potolin in court as the seller. Chemical analysis confirmed the substance was marijuana. The court found the prosecution had proven the elements of the crime: the identities of buyer and seller, the object and consideration exchanged, and the delivery of the item sold. Potolin's claim that he would not sell to a stranger was not persuasive, as drug dealers are known to sell to anyone for the right price.

Uploaded by

Denise
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

People of the Philippines v.

Armando Potolin
G.R. 220759
July 24, 2017
Facts:
On 20th day of April 2006, Armando Potolin, have in his control and possession two (2) teabags of
marijuana, weighing 0.95g and 0.97g, respectively, a dangerous drug.

That on or about the 20 th day of April 2006, in the Municipality of Carigara, Province of Leyte,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and
there, unlawfully, willfully and feloniously sell, deliver and give away four (4) teabags of marijuana
weighing 0.96g, 1.11 g, 0.97g and 98g, respectively, a dangerous drug to poseur-buyer PO2 Elvin E.
Ricote for P200.00 in two marked P100 bills with serial nos. SB226477 and XDO13891, without being
authorized by law.

The team brought appellant and the seized items to the police station for blotter. The seized items were
submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory for chemical analysis. P/Insp. Son prepared the request for
laboratory examination. A certain SPO1 Cesar Cruda of the PDEA acknowledged receipt of the letter
request and the items from PO2 Ricote and submitted them to the crime laboratory on April 20,
2006.21 (P/C Insp.) Edwin Zata, the Forensic Chemist, examined the specimens submitted which yielded
positive results for marijuana, a dangerous drug. 22 His findings was reduced to writing as Chemistry
Report No. D-094-2006. PO2 Ricote identified in court the items bought from appellant.

Issue:
1. Is Armando Potolin guilty despite failure of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the
corpus delicti?
2. Is Armando Potolin guilty despite the fact that the elements for prosecution of sale of illegal
drugs were not established?

Ruling:
1. Yes. In every prosecution for the illegal sale of marijuana, the following elements must be
proved: (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the
delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 34 What is material to 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 evidence of corpus delicti.  

2. We agree with the CA that the prosecution had satisfactorily proven all these elements. PO2
Ricote, the poseur-buyer, positively identified appellant as the seller of the four teabags of
suspected marijuana and to whom he handed the marked two pieces of one hundred-peso bills as
payment therefor. The substance sold by appellant to PO2 Ricote was sent to the PNP Crime
Laboratory for analysis and upon the examination made by the Forensic Chemist, P/C Insp. Zata
showed that the four teabags with a total weight of 4.02 grams yielded a positive result for
marijuana, a dangerous drug. The marijuana was presented to the court and was identified by PO2
Ricote to be the marijuana he bought from appellant based on the markings he made thereon.

Appellant's claim that it was impossible for him to publicly deal with PO2 Ricote, an unfamiliar
face, is not persuasive. Peddlers of illicit drugs have been known with ever increasing casualness
and recklessness to offer and sell their wares for the right price to anybody, be they strangers or
not.36 Moreover, drug-pushing when done on a small-scale, like the instant case, belongs to those
types of crimes that may be committed any time and at any place.

You might also like