People of the Philippines

vs Roman Lacap
GR NO. 139114
OCTOBER 23, 2001
FACTS
• Accused-shabu supplier, a former military
officer trained in narcotics operation, anti-
terrorism, and military tactics denied the
existence of any buy-bust operation, and
alleged that the whole operation was a frame-
up.
• The lower court convicted the supplier.
• On appeal, he contended that there was no actual
delivery of the drug to the poseur-buyer.
• Sec. 15, Art. III of RA 6425, as amended by Sec. 20,
Art. IV of RA 7659:
Two (2) elements necessary for the crime of
illegal sale of shabu:
(1) identity of buyer and seller, object, and
consideration; and
(2) delivery of thing sold and payment therefor.
ISSUE
• Was the supplier correct in his contention?
RULING
• No. Although the supplier did not actually
hand the contraband to the buyer, he placed it
on top of the vault where the latter could have
easily gotten it after paying him. There was,
thus, a constructive delivery of the drug.
• There is no rule which requires that in a buy-bust
operation there must be a simultaneous
exchange of the money and the drug the poseur-
buyer and the pusher. Nor was it important that
the “boodle” money was not presented in court.
• What is material to the prosecution of the illegal
sale of dangerous drugs is proof that the
transaction actually took place with the
presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the
substantial fact that a crime has been committed.