Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 137 views

    1 PP v. Velasco 252 SCRA 135

    Uploaded by

    Abu Khaleel
    1) Yolanda Velasco was apprehended in a buy-bust operation for selling shabu and was found guilty by the RTC. She argued on appeal that the evidence against her (five decks of shabu) was inadmissible and that the RTC lacked jurisdiction. 2) The Supreme Court ruled that the warrantless arrest was valid under the rules of criminal procedure since she was caught in the act of selling drugs. It also found that the RTC had proper jurisdiction over the case at the time it was filed based on the laws in effect then, despite later amendments to drug laws. 3) The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding that the evidence was properly admitted and that the RTC had jurisdiction

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    1 PP v. Velasco 252 SCRA 135

    Uploaded by

    Abu Khaleel
    137 views1 page
    1) Yolanda Velasco was apprehended in a buy-bust operation for selling shabu and was found guilty by the RTC. She argued on appeal that the evidence against her (five decks of shabu) was inadmissible and that the RTC lacked jurisdiction. 2) The Supreme Court ruled that the warrantless arrest was valid under the rules of criminal procedure since she was caught in the act of selling drugs. It also found that the RTC had proper jurisdiction over the case at the time it was filed based on the laws in effect then, despite later amendments to drug laws. 3) The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding that the evidence was properly admitted and that the RTC had jurisdiction

    Original Title

    1 pp v. velasco 252 SCRA 135

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Yolanda Velasco was apprehended in a buy-bust operation for selling shabu and was found guilty by the RTC. She argued on appeal that the evidence against her (five decks of shabu) was inadmissible and that the RTC lacked jurisdiction. 2) The Supreme Court ruled that the warrantless arrest was valid under the rules of criminal procedure since she was caught in the act of selling drugs. It also found that the RTC had proper jurisdiction over the case at the time it was filed based on the laws in effect then, despite later amendments to drug laws. 3) The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding that the evidence was properly admitted and that the RTC had jurisdiction

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    137 views1 page

    1 PP v. Velasco 252 SCRA 135

    Uploaded by

    Abu Khaleel
    1) Yolanda Velasco was apprehended in a buy-bust operation for selling shabu and was found guilty by the RTC. She argued on appeal that the evidence against her (five decks of shabu) was inadmissible and that the RTC lacked jurisdiction. 2) The Supreme Court ruled that the warrantless arrest was valid under the rules of criminal procedure since she was caught in the act of selling drugs. It also found that the RTC had proper jurisdiction over the case at the time it was filed based on the laws in effect then, despite later amendments to drug laws. 3) The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding that the evidence was properly admitted and that the RTC had jurisdiction

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    PEOPLE v.

    VELASCO (252 SCRA 135)


    G.R. No. 110592; January 23, 1996
    FACTS:

    Sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of P20,000.00 by the Regional Trial Court of Manila was appellant Yolanda
    Velasco y Pamintuan, after having been found guilty of unlawfully selling “shabu,” in violation of Section 15 of Article III in relation to
    Section 2(e-2), (f), (m), and (o) of Article 1 of “The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972” (R.A. 6425).
     
    Velasco was apprehended in a buy-bust operation in the afternoon of June 28, 1991. Velasco was caught in flagrante delicto
    as she was handing shabu to a designated poseur-buyer in exchange for a Fifty-peso marked bill. Five more decks were found in her
    pockets.

    Appellant argues that the court erred in admitting the said decks of shabu as evidence against her since those were
    acquired through a warrantless arrest. Hence, its inadmissibility. Secondly, appellant questions the RTC’s jurisdiction over the case
    given the quantity allegedly obtained in her possession and its corresponding penalty.

     ISSUES:

    1.) Whether or not the decks of shabu are inadmissible as evidence for having been acquired through a warrantless arrest.

    2.) Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over the case.

    RULING:

    1.) Yes. Section 5(a) of Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that an arrest when done lawfully either by a
    peace officer or any private person may be done if the person to be arrested is actually committing, has committed or
    attempting to commit an offense.

    Appellant was caught in flagrante delicto thus her denial and defense of frame-up cannot be justified under the said
    provision. Moreover, appellant failed to establish that the buy-bust operations by an official abuse and that the members of
    the buy-bust team are policemen engaged in mulcting or other unscrupulous caprice when they entrapped her.

    2.) Yes.  The enforcement of R.A. 7659, which amended the penalty provided for in R.A. 6425, agrees with the appellants
    argument that under the foregoing directive, since the amount of shabu involved in the instant case is only 0.8020 gram, the
    proper imposable component penalty is prision correccional to be applied in its medium period, in the absence of any
    mitigating or aggravating circumstances. Applying the indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum shall be taken from the
    medium of prision correccional, which is two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day, to four (4) years and two (2)
    months, while the minimum shall be taken from the penalty next lower in degree, which is arresto mayor, the range of
    which is one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months.” 

    R.A. 7691 expanded the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial
    Courts. The said act vested these courts with exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with imprisonment
    not exceeding six years. However, R.A. 7691 shows that retroactive provisions apply only to civil cases that have not yet
    reached the pre-trial stage. Neither from an express proviso nor by implication can it be understood as having retroactive
    application to criminal cases pending or decided by the Regional Trial Courts prior to its effectivity. RTC’s jurisdiction to
    proceed to the final determination of the cause is not affected by the new legislation.

    At the time that the case against appellant was filed, the Regional Trial Court had jurisdiction over the offense charged in as
    much as Section 39 of R.A 6425. In fine, the jurisdiction of the trial court (RTC) over the case of the appellant was conferred
    by the aforecited law then in force (R.A. 6425 before amendment) when the information was filed.   Jurisdiction attached
    upon the commencement of the action and could not be ousted by the passage of R.A. 7691 reapportioning the jurisdiction
    of inferior courts, the application of which to criminal cases is, to stress, prospective in nature.

    You might also like