Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ROMEO DEL MUNDO Y STA. MARIA

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 186527 2010-06-29	PEOPLE v. ROY PAMPILLONA Y REBADULLA MENDOZA, J.
In this jurisdiction, the conduct of a buy-bust operation is a common and accepted mode of apprehending those involved in illegal sale of prohibited or regulated drugs. It has been proven to be an effective way of unveiling the identities of drug dealers and of luring them out of obscurity.[15] Unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were impelled by any improper motive or were not properly performing their duty, their testimonies on the operation deserve full faith and credit.[16]
	GR No. 186419 2010-04-23	PEOPLE v. DARLENE QUIGOD Y MIRANDA VELASCO JR., J.
Further, it is worth noting that the chain of custody was also clearly established. In every prosecution for the illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the presentation of the drug, i.e., as part of the corpus delicti, as evidence in court is also material.[33] Corpus delicti is the body or substance of the crime, and establishes the fact that a crime has actually been committed.[34]
	GR No. 186471 2010-01-25	PEOPLE v. RODANTE DE LEON Y DELA ROSA VELASCO JR., J.
In the prosecution for the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the Court has reiterated the essential elements in People v. Pendatun, to wit: (1) the accused sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another; and (2) he knew that what he had sold and delivered was a prohibited drug.[11] Therefore, what is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of the corpus delicti.[12] Corpus delicti is the body or substance of the crime, and establishes the fact that a crime has actually been committed. It has two elements, namely: (1) proof of the occurrence of a certain event; and (2) some person's criminal responsibility for the act.[13]
	GR No. 179700 2009-06-22	GWYN QUINICOT Y CURATIVO v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In this jurisdiction, the conduct of a buy-bust operation is a common and accepted mode of apprehending those involved in illegal sale of prohibited or regulated drugs. It has been proven to be an effective way of unveiling the identities of drug dealers and of luring them out of obscurity.[47] Unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or were not properly performing their duty, their testimonies on the operation deserve full faith and credit.[48]
	GR No. 173483 2008-09-23	PEOPLE v. MERLIE* DUMANGAY Y SALE QUISUMBING, J.
In Criminal Case No. 02-3569, to suffer imprisonment for a term of twelve [12] years and one [1] day to twenty [20] years and to pay a fine of P300,000.00; and
	GR No. 180511 2008-07-28	PEOPLE v. MARILYN NAQUITA Y CIBULO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In this jurisdiction, the conduct of a buy-bust operation is a common and accepted mode of apprehending those involved in illegal sale of prohibited or regulated drugs. It has been proven to be an effective way of unveiling the identities of drug dealers and of luring them out of obscurity.[59] Unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or were not properly performing their duty, their testimonies on the operation deserve full faith and credit.[60]
	GR No. 178876 2008-06-27	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO CONCEPCION Y CLEMENTE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We find their claim untenable. In this jurisdiction, the conduct of a buy-bust operation is a common and accepted mode of apprehending those involved in the illegal sale of prohibited or regulated drugs. It has been proven to be an effective way of unveiling the identities of drug dealers and of luring them out of obscurity.[35] Unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or were not properly performing their duty, their testimonies on the operation deserve full faith and credit.[36]
	GR No. 175604 2008-04-10	PEOPLE v. SALVADOR PEÑAFLORIDA TINGA, J,
Prescinding from the above argument, appellant insists that the asset should have been presented in court. He invoked the court ruling in People v. Libag,[23] wherein the non-presentation of the informant was fatal to the case of the prosecution. Libag cannot find application in this case. In that case, the crime charged was the sale of shabu where the informant himself was a poseur-buyer and a witness to the transaction. His testimony as a poseur-buyer was indispensable because it could have helped the trial court in determining whether or not the appellant had knowledge that the bag contained marijuana, such knowledge being an essential ingredient of the offense for which he was convicted.[24] In this case, however, the asset was not present in the police operation. The rule is that the presentation of an informant in an illegal drugs case is not essential for conviction nor is it indispensable for a successful prosecution because his testimony would merely be corroborative and cumulative. Informants are generally not presented in court because of the need to hide their identity and preserve their invaluable service to the police.[25]
	GR NO. 175928 2007-08-31	PEOPLE v. ALVIN PRINGAS Y PANGANIBAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In this jurisdiction, the conduct of a buy-bust operation is a common and accepted mode of apprehending those involved in the illegal sale of prohibited or regulated drugs. It has been proven to be an effective way of unveiling the identities of drug dealers and of luring them out of obscurity.[49] Unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or were not properly performing their duty, their testimonies on the operation deserve full faith and credit.[50]