Scribd
Upload
317 views1 page

People V Naelga GR No. 171018

1) Elly Naelga was caught in possession of methamphetamine during a buy-bust operation conducted by the Pangasinan Police. 2) The RTC of Rosales, Pangasinan found Naelga guilty of violating the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. 3) The Supreme Court upheld Naelga's conviction, ruling that irregularities in procedural compliance for a buy-bust operation do not automatically lead to exoneration of the accused. Convictions must be based on documentary and real evidence, not just presumption.

Uploaded by

Johnry Parilla
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
317 views1 page

People V Naelga GR No. 171018

1) Elly Naelga was caught in possession of methamphetamine during a buy-bust operation conducted by the Pangasinan Police. 2) The RTC of Rosales, Pangasinan found Naelga guilty of violating the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. 3) The Supreme Court upheld Naelga's conviction, ruling that irregularities in procedural compliance for a buy-bust operation do not automatically lead to exoneration of the accused. Convictions must be based on documentary and real evidence, not just presumption.

Uploaded by

Johnry Parilla
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/ 1

CASE DIGEST

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V ELLY NAELGA


GR NO. 171018, September 11, 2009
Chico-Nazario, J.:


FACTS :

Accused-Appellant Elly Naelga was caught in possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride or
shabu in a buy-bust operation conducted by the Pangasinan Police on July 15, 2003.

In the case filed at the RTC of Rosales, Pangasinan , said court found accused-appellant Naelga
guilty for violating Sec. 5 & 11 of Art. II of R.A. 9165 known as The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
of 2002.

Said decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

Hence, submitted to the Supreme Court for Review.

ISSUES :

Whether or not irregularity in the procedural compliance under Sec. 21 (a), Art II of the IRR of
R.A. 9165 in a buy-bust operation can be a ground for the exoneration of the accused.

RULING :

NO. The Supreme Court upheld that the failure of the buy-bust team to strictly comply with
the provision of said section did not prevent the presumption of regularity in the performance
of duty from applying. The jurisdiction of the prosecution of a crime of illegal sale of prohibited
drugs is the establishment of the consummation of the sale and not with the procedural
requirements of the arrest.

Similarly, the same will not automatically lead to the exoneration of the accused. Conviction
shall not be based solely on said presumption but rather on documentary and real evidence.

Hence, the Court affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals.



Prepared by:

Winstoney Mazo

You might also like