Lawyerly

GR No. 218396

2016-02-10

PEREZ, J.

The presence or absence of these essential elements deals with factual matters which are best left to the discretion of the trial court to ascertain. As the Court has repeatedly emphasized in many cases, the trial court is in a better position to determine the credibility of witnesses having heard and observed firsthand their behavior and manner of testifying during trial.[19] Thus, the reviewing court is generally bound by the trial court's findings where no substantial reason exists that would justify a reversal of the assessments and conclusions drawn by the latter.[20]

GR No. 198452

2014-02-19

PEOPLE v. VICENTE ROM

PEREZ, J.

We already had occasion to show the unacceptability of the contention of the appellant that the testimony of the poseur-buyer was absurd, illogical, contrary to reason and highly incredible for no person who is engaged in an illegal transaction would leave the door of the house open after such transaction. In case after case, we observed that drug pushers sell their prohibited articles to any prospective customer, be he a stranger or not, in private as well as in public places, even in the daytime. Indeed, the drug pushers have become increasingly daring, dangerous and, worse, openly defiant of the law. Hence, what matters is not the existing familiarity between the buyer and the seller or the time and venue of the sale, but the fact of agreement and the acts constituting the sale and the delivery of the prohibited drugs.[43]

GR No. 181250

2012-07-18

PEOPLE v. EMMALYN DELA CERNA Y QUINDAO

BERSAMIN, J.

Nor should we give substance to Medenceles' argument that a real drug pusher would not have casually approached just anyone in order to sell drugs. The records indicate that Agent Zuniga, Jr. was not just anyone because the informant, whom both accused were familiar with, accompanied the poseur buyer. Prior to the actual transaction, the informant and the accused had agreed to meet at the venue of the arrest so that the accused could sell the ecstacy to the poseur buyer. Under the circumstances, the poseur buyer was not a stranger to the accused. At any rate, such a defense has been discredited by the Court several times. In People v. Requiz,[22] for instance, the Court observed: If pushers peddle drugs only to persons known to them, then drug abuse would certainly not be as rampant as it is today and would not pose a serious threat to society. We have found in many cases that drug pushers sell their prohibited articles to any prospective customer, be he a stranger or not, in private as well as in public places, even in the daytime. Indeed, drug pushers have become increasingly daring, dangerous and, worse, openly defiant of the law. Hence, what matters is not the existing familiarity between the buyer and the seller or the time and venue of the sale, but the fact of agreement and the acts constituting sale and delivery of the prohibited drugs.

GR No. 185721

2011-09-28

PEOPLE v. RICKY UNISA Y ISLAN

PEREZ, J.

To note, there are no provisions either in Republic Act No. 9165 or its Implementing Rules and Regulations requiring that (1) the Pre-Operation Report/Coordination Sheet that should be transmitted to PDEA must only be signed by the person who conducted the briefing; and (2) the buy-bust money to be used in the actual buy-bust operation must be dusted with ultra-violet powder. The Pre-Operation Report/Coordination Sheet and the use of dusted money are not indispensable to prove the illegal sale of shabu. These two are not part of the elements of the aforesaid offense. To repeat, in a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu, what is important is the fact that the poseur-buyer received shabu from the accused-appellant and the same was presented as evidence in court,[51] which the prosecution in this case was able to do so. As has been previously discussed, all the elements of illegal sale of shabu were adequately proven and established by the prosecution.

GR No. 187047

2011-06-15

PEOPLE v. MANUEL CRUZ Y CRUZ

PEREZ, J.

Jurisprudence clearly set the essential elements to be established in the prosecution for illegal sale of shabu, viz: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor. Succinctly, the delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummates the buy-bust transaction. [30] What is material, therefore, is the proof that the transaction or sale transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti. [31] In this case, the prosecution successfully established the aforesaid elements beyond moral certainty.

GR No. 185166

2011-01-26

PEOPLE v. MARK LESTER DELA ROSA Y SUELLO

PEREZ, J.

This Court has consistently pronounced that drug pushers sell their prohibited articles to any prospective customer, be he a stranger or not, in private, as well as in public places, even in the daytime. Indeed, drug pushers have become increasingly daring, dangerous and, worse, openly defiant of the law. Hence, what matters is not the existing familiarity between the buyer and the seller or the time and venue of the sale, but the fact of agreement and the acts constituting sale and delivery of the prohibited drugs.[40]

GR No. 148518

2004-04-15

PEOPLE v. NARCISO SALDAÑA

PER CURIAM

As held by the trial court, however, appellant Malit's contentions are unfounded. The matter of presentation of witnesses by the prosecution is not for appellant or even the trial court to decide.[123] Section 5,[124] Rule 110 of the Rules of Court expressly vests in the prosecutor the direction and control over the prosecution of a case. The determination of which evidence to present rests upon him. As the prosecution had other witnesses who could sufficiently prove the kidnapping for ransom, it could dispense with the evidence to be provided by Cesar Quiroz.

GR No. 144317

2003-08-05

PEOPLE v. MICHAEL MONTE Y ABDUL

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

In the prosecution for the sale of regulated drugs, like shabu, what is material is the proof that the transaction or sale transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti.[17] Corpus delicti is the body or substance of the crime, and establishes the fact that a crime has been actually committed.[18] It has two elements, namely: (1) proof of the occurrence of a certain event; and (2) some person's criminal responsibility for the act.[19]

GR No. 132171

2000-05-31

PEOPLE v. VIRGILIO GOMEZ

GONZAGA-REYES, J.

As for the third assigned error, we reiterate the rule that the prosecution is imbued with the discretion to choose who to present as witnesses.[26] We do not find it dubious that the prosecution presented Roquero as lone eyewitness, for this Court can attest to numerous convictions which prospered on the basis of the positive and credible testimony of a single witness. Besides, the records reflect that the prosecution intended to present Gerry Galicia[27] as a witness, but desisted because Galicia was then in Manila and there was no certainty as to when he would return to Antique.[28] To our mind, there is nothing in the records to suggest that the prosecution suppressed evidence, and the accused-appellant's allegation is plainly unfounded.

GR No. 121572

2000-03-31

PEOPLE v. JOEL ELAMPARO Y FONTANILLA

QUISUMBING, J.

As to the first issue, it is well-settled that the assessment of credibility of witnesses is within the province of the trial court which had an opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor during their testimonies. Unless the trial court overlooked substantial facts which would affect the outcome of the case, we accord the utmost respect to their findings of facts. As compared to the baseless disclaimers of appellant, the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses appears worthy of belief, coming as it does from law enforcers who are presumed to have regularly performed their duty in the absence of proof to the contrary.[9]

GR No. 121572

2000-03-31

PEOPLE v. JOEL ELAMPARO Y FONTANILLA

QUISUMBING, J.

Appellants claims that it is highly suspect that Spencer would offer to sell marijuana to total strangers. However, in many cases, drug pushers did sell their prohibited articles to prospective customers, be they strangers or not, in private as well as in public places, even in the daytime. Indeed, some drug pushers appear to have become exceedingly daring, openly defiant of the law. Hence, what matters is not the existing familiarity between the buyer and the seller, or the time and venue of the sale, but the fact of agreement as well as the act constituting sale and delivery of prohibited drugs.[10] As found a quo, it was the consummated sale between PO2 Gaviola and Spencer which led to the eventual arrest of appellant.

GR Nos. 131872-73

2000-02-17

PEOPLE v. CHEN TIZ CHANG

PANGANIBAN, J.

In closing, we reiterate that the "[i]llegal drug trade is the scourge of society."[40] Equally reprehensible is the police practice of using the law as a tool in extorting money from hapless victims.[41] In this case, however, appellants' theory of extortion was not sufficiently proven.

	GR No. 218396 2016-02-10	PEOPLE v. NESTOR ROXAS Y CASTRO PEREZ, J.
The presence or absence of these essential elements deals with factual matters which are best left to the discretion of the trial court to ascertain. As the Court has repeatedly emphasized in many cases, the trial court is in a better position to determine the credibility of witnesses having heard and observed firsthand their behavior and manner of testifying during trial.[19] Thus, the reviewing court is generally bound by the trial court's findings where no substantial reason exists that would justify a reversal of the assessments and conclusions drawn by the latter.[20]
	GR No. 198452 2014-02-19	PEOPLE v. VICENTE ROM PEREZ, J.
We already had occasion to show the unacceptability of the contention of the appellant that the testimony of the poseur-buyer was absurd, illogical, contrary to reason and highly incredible for no person who is engaged in an illegal transaction would leave the door of the house open after such transaction. In case after case, we observed that drug pushers sell their prohibited articles to any prospective customer, be he a stranger or not, in private as well as in public places, even in the daytime. Indeed, the drug pushers have become increasingly daring, dangerous and, worse, openly defiant of the law. Hence, what matters is not the existing familiarity between the buyer and the seller or the time and venue of the sale, but the fact of agreement and the acts constituting the sale and the delivery of the prohibited drugs.[43]
	GR No. 181250 2012-07-18	PEOPLE v. EMMALYN DELA CERNA Y QUINDAO BERSAMIN, J.
Nor should we give substance to Medenceles' argument that a real drug pusher would not have casually approached just anyone in order to sell drugs. The records indicate that Agent Zuniga, Jr. was not just anyone because the informant, whom both accused were familiar with, accompanied the poseur buyer. Prior to the actual transaction, the informant and the accused had agreed to meet at the venue of the arrest so that the accused could sell the ecstacy to the poseur buyer. Under the circumstances, the poseur buyer was not a stranger to the accused. At any rate, such a defense has been discredited by the Court several times. In People v. Requiz,[22] for instance, the Court observed: If pushers peddle drugs only to persons known to them, then drug abuse would certainly not be as rampant as it is today and would not pose a serious threat to society. We have found in many cases that drug pushers sell their prohibited articles to any prospective customer, be he a stranger or not, in private as well as in public places, even in the daytime. Indeed, drug pushers have become increasingly daring, dangerous and, worse, openly defiant of the law. Hence, what matters is not the existing familiarity between the buyer and the seller or the time and venue of the sale, but the fact of agreement and the acts constituting sale and delivery of the prohibited drugs.
	GR No. 185721 2011-09-28	PEOPLE v. RICKY UNISA Y ISLAN PEREZ, J.
To note, there are no provisions either in Republic Act No. 9165 or its Implementing Rules and Regulations requiring that (1) the Pre-Operation Report/Coordination Sheet that should be transmitted to PDEA must only be signed by the person who conducted the briefing; and (2) the buy-bust money to be used in the actual buy-bust operation must be dusted with ultra-violet powder. The Pre-Operation Report/Coordination Sheet and the use of dusted money are not indispensable to prove the illegal sale of shabu. These two are not part of the elements of the aforesaid offense. To repeat, in a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu, what is important is the fact that the poseur-buyer received shabu from the accused-appellant and the same was presented as evidence in court,[51] which the prosecution in this case was able to do so. As has been previously discussed, all the elements of illegal sale of shabu were adequately proven and established by the prosecution.
	GR No. 187047 2011-06-15	PEOPLE v. MANUEL CRUZ Y CRUZ PEREZ, J.
Jurisprudence clearly set the essential elements to be established in the prosecution for illegal sale of shabu, viz: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor. Succinctly, the delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummates the buy-bust transaction. [30] What is material, therefore, is the proof that the transaction or sale transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti. [31] In this case, the prosecution successfully established the aforesaid elements beyond moral certainty.
	GR No. 185166 2011-01-26	PEOPLE v. MARK LESTER DELA ROSA Y SUELLO PEREZ, J.
This Court has consistently pronounced that drug pushers sell their prohibited articles to any prospective customer, be he a stranger or not, in private, as well as in public places, even in the daytime. Indeed, drug pushers have become increasingly daring, dangerous and, worse, openly defiant of the law. Hence, what matters is not the existing familiarity between the buyer and the seller or the time and venue of the sale, but the fact of agreement and the acts constituting sale and delivery of the prohibited drugs.[40]
	GR No. 148518 2004-04-15	PEOPLE v. NARCISO SALDAÑA PER CURIAM
As held by the trial court, however, appellant Malit's contentions are unfounded. The matter of presentation of witnesses by the prosecution is not for appellant or even the trial court to decide.[123] Section 5,[124] Rule 110 of the Rules of Court expressly vests in the prosecutor the direction and control over the prosecution of a case. The determination of which evidence to present rests upon him. As the prosecution had other witnesses who could sufficiently prove the kidnapping for ransom, it could dispense with the evidence to be provided by Cesar Quiroz.
	GR No. 144317 2003-08-05	PEOPLE v. MICHAEL MONTE Y ABDUL YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In the prosecution for the sale of regulated drugs, like shabu, what is material is the proof that the transaction or sale transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti.[17] Corpus delicti is the body or substance of the crime, and establishes the fact that a crime has been actually committed.[18] It has two elements, namely: (1) proof of the occurrence of a certain event; and (2) some person's criminal responsibility for the act.[19]
	GR No. 132171 2000-05-31	PEOPLE v. VIRGILIO GOMEZ GONZAGA-REYES, J.
As for the third assigned error, we reiterate the rule that the prosecution is imbued with the discretion to choose who to present as witnesses.[26] We do not find it dubious that the prosecution presented Roquero as lone eyewitness, for this Court can attest to numerous convictions which prospered on the basis of the positive and credible testimony of a single witness. Besides, the records reflect that the prosecution intended to present Gerry Galicia[27] as a witness, but desisted because Galicia was then in Manila and there was no certainty as to when he would return to Antique.[28] To our mind, there is nothing in the records to suggest that the prosecution suppressed evidence, and the accused-appellant's allegation is plainly unfounded.
	GR No. 121572 2000-03-31	PEOPLE v. JOEL ELAMPARO Y FONTANILLA QUISUMBING, J.
As to the first issue, it is well-settled that the assessment of credibility of witnesses is within the province of the trial court which had an opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor during their testimonies. Unless the trial court overlooked substantial facts which would affect the outcome of the case, we accord the utmost respect to their findings of facts. As compared to the baseless disclaimers of appellant, the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses appears worthy of belief, coming as it does from law enforcers who are presumed to have regularly performed their duty in the absence of proof to the contrary.[9]
	GR No. 121572 2000-03-31	PEOPLE v. JOEL ELAMPARO Y FONTANILLA QUISUMBING, J.
Appellants claims that it is highly suspect that Spencer would offer to sell marijuana to total strangers. However, in many cases, drug pushers did sell their prohibited articles to prospective customers, be they strangers or not, in private as well as in public places, even in the daytime. Indeed, some drug pushers appear to have become exceedingly daring, openly defiant of the law. Hence, what matters is not the existing familiarity between the buyer and the seller, or the time and venue of the sale, but the fact of agreement as well as the act constituting sale and delivery of prohibited drugs.[10] As found a quo, it was the consummated sale between PO2 Gaviola and Spencer which led to the eventual arrest of appellant.
	GR Nos. 131872-73 2000-02-17	PEOPLE v. CHEN TIZ CHANG PANGANIBAN, J.
In closing, we reiterate that the "[i]llegal drug trade is the scourge of society."[40] Equally reprehensible is the police practice of using the law as a tool in extorting money from hapless victims.[41] In this case, however, appellants' theory of extortion was not sufficiently proven.

PEOPLE v. ALFREDO REQUIZ