Lawyerly

GR No. 201111

2014-08-06

PEREZ, J.

Appellant's defense, which is predicated on bare denial, deserves scant consideration in light of the positive testimonies of the police officers. The defense of frame-up or denial in drug cases requires strong and convincing evidence because of the presumption that the law enforcement agencies acted in the regular performance of their official duties.[21] Bare denial of appellant cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of the three police officers.[22] Moreover, there is no evidence of any improper motive on the part of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation to falsely testify against appellant.

GR No. 199874

2014-07-23

PEOPLE v. PETER FANG Y GAMBOA

PEREZ, J.

Appellant's defense, which is predicated on a bare denial, deserves scant consideration in light of the positive testimonies of the police officers. The defense of frame-up or denial in drug cases requires strong and convincing evidence because of the presumption that the law enforcement agencies acted in the regular performance of their official duties.[19] Bare denials of appellant cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of the three police officers.[20] Moreover, there is no evidence of any improper motive on the part of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation to falsely testify against appellant.

GR No. 185721

2011-09-28

PEOPLE v. RICKY UNISA Y ISLAN

PEREZ, J.

We rely on the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses, absent any showing that certain facts of weight and substance bearing on the elements of the crime have been overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied.[40]

GR No. 171526

2010-09-01

RODEL CRISOSTOMO v. PEOPLE

DEL CASTILLO, J.

The petitioner also avers that he was not the person depicted in the cartographic sketch. However, "a cartographic sketch, unlike a photograph, is only intended to give the law enforcers a general idea of the likeness of a suspect and is never expected to exactly resemble his actual facial appearance. Even the description of the suspect given in the cartographic sketch may not be unerringly exact."[22] What is important is the fact that the petitioner was positively identified by Rodelio as the perpetrator of the crime even without a moustache and curly hair.

GR No. 175319

2010-01-15

PEOPLE v. JOSELITO NOQUE Y GOMEZ

DEL CASTILLO, J.

The prosecution successfully proved that appellant violated Section 15, Article III of RA 6425. The prosecution's evidence established the concurrence of the elements of an illegal sale of a dangerous drug, to wit: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[10]

GR No. 181747

2008-09-26

PEOPLE v. NARCISO AGULAY Y LOPEZ

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

(2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[12]

GR No. 174773

2007-10-02

PEOPLE v. MARILYN MIRANDA Y RAMA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment whereby ways and means are employed for the purpose of trapping and capturing lawbreakers in the execution of their plan.[19] It has become a familiar and much-resorted to procedure to apprehend lawless elements and to put a dent on the proliferation of criminal activities. In particular, its use has been proven effective in putting an end to the illicit business of drug peddlers who are susceptible to deal with anyone willing to purchase their goods even if the prospective buyer is a total stranger. Unless there is a 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 with respect to the operation deserve full faith and credit.[20]

GR NO. 173795

2007-04-03

PEOPLE v. LOIDA R. SORIANO

TINGA, J.

Denial or frame-up, like alibi, has been viewed by the court with disfavor for it can just as easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.[25] The defense of frame-up or denial in drug cases requires strong and convincing evidence because of the presumption that the law enforcement agencies acted in the regular performance of their official duties.[26] Bare denials of appellants cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of the three police officers.[27] Moreover, there is no evidence of any improper motive on the part of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation to falsely testify against appellants.

GR NO. 172019

2007-02-12

PEOPLE v. BOISAN CABUGATAN Y MACARAMBON

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

In the prosecution of offenses involving this provision of the statute, it is necessary that the following elements be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefore.[39] What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.[40]

GR No. 135378

2004-04-14

PEOPLE v. ANGELITO AMBROSIO Y CAMPOS

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

As to the penalty imposed by the trial court on appellant Que, the Court finds the same to be in accord with the provisions of R.A. 6425 as amended by R.A. No. 7659. The penalty prescribed for the consummated sale of 200 grams of shabu without authority of law is reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00. Under Article 63 (No. 2) of the Revised Penal Code, the lesser penalty is applied when there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the offense. In the case at bar, the prosecution did not allege or prove the attendance of any modifying circumstance to justify the imposition of the extreme penalty. Hence, the trial court did not err in imposing upon appellant Que the penalty of reclusion perpetua.[66]

GR No. 135378

2004-04-14

PEOPLE v. ANGELITO AMBROSIO Y CAMPOS

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

As to the penalty imposed by the trial court on appellant Que, the Court finds the same to be in accord with the provisions of R.A. 6425 as amended by R.A. No. 7659. The penalty prescribed for the consummated sale of 200 grams of shabu without authority of law is reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00. Under Article 63 (No. 2) of the Revised Penal Code, the lesser penalty is applied when there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the offense. In the case at bar, the prosecution did not allege or prove the attendance of any modifying circumstance to justify the imposition of the extreme penalty. Hence, the trial court did not err in imposing upon appellant Que the penalty of reclusion perpetua.[66]

	GR No. 201111 2014-08-06	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO CERDON Y SANCHEZ PEREZ, J.
Appellant's defense, which is predicated on bare denial, deserves scant consideration in light of the positive testimonies of the police officers. The defense of frame-up or denial in drug cases requires strong and convincing evidence because of the presumption that the law enforcement agencies acted in the regular performance of their official duties.[21] Bare denial of appellant cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of the three police officers.[22] Moreover, there is no evidence of any improper motive on the part of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation to falsely testify against appellant.
	GR No. 199874 2014-07-23	PEOPLE v. PETER FANG Y GAMBOA PEREZ, J.
Appellant's defense, which is predicated on a bare denial, deserves scant consideration in light of the positive testimonies of the police officers. The defense of frame-up or denial in drug cases requires strong and convincing evidence because of the presumption that the law enforcement agencies acted in the regular performance of their official duties.[19] Bare denials of appellant cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of the three police officers.[20] Moreover, there is no evidence of any improper motive on the part of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation to falsely testify against appellant.
	GR No. 185721 2011-09-28	PEOPLE v. RICKY UNISA Y ISLAN PEREZ, J.
We rely on the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses, absent any showing that certain facts of weight and substance bearing on the elements of the crime have been overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied.[40]
	GR No. 171526 2010-09-01	RODEL CRISOSTOMO v. PEOPLE DEL CASTILLO, J.
The petitioner also avers that he was not the person depicted in the cartographic sketch. However, "a cartographic sketch, unlike a photograph, is only intended to give the law enforcers a general idea of the likeness of a suspect and is never expected to exactly resemble his actual facial appearance. Even the description of the suspect given in the cartographic sketch may not be unerringly exact."[22] What is important is the fact that the petitioner was positively identified by Rodelio as the perpetrator of the crime even without a moustache and curly hair.
	GR No. 175319 2010-01-15	PEOPLE v. JOSELITO NOQUE Y GOMEZ DEL CASTILLO, J.
The prosecution successfully proved that appellant violated Section 15, Article III of RA 6425. The prosecution's evidence established the concurrence of the elements of an illegal sale of a dangerous drug, to wit: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[10]
	GR No. 181747 2008-09-26	PEOPLE v. NARCISO AGULAY Y LOPEZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
(2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[12]
	GR No. 174773 2007-10-02	PEOPLE v. MARILYN MIRANDA Y RAMA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment whereby ways and means are employed for the purpose of trapping and capturing lawbreakers in the execution of their plan.[19] It has become a familiar and much-resorted to procedure to apprehend lawless elements and to put a dent on the proliferation of criminal activities. In particular, its use has been proven effective in putting an end to the illicit business of drug peddlers who are susceptible to deal with anyone willing to purchase their goods even if the prospective buyer is a total stranger. Unless there is a 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 with respect to the operation deserve full faith and credit.[20]
	GR NO. 173795 2007-04-03	PEOPLE v. LOIDA R. SORIANO TINGA, J.
Denial or frame-up, like alibi, has been viewed by the court with disfavor for it can just as easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.[25] The defense of frame-up or denial in drug cases requires strong and convincing evidence because of the presumption that the law enforcement agencies acted in the regular performance of their official duties.[26] Bare denials of appellants cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of the three police officers.[27] Moreover, there is no evidence of any improper motive on the part of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation to falsely testify against appellants.
	GR NO. 172019 2007-02-12	PEOPLE v. BOISAN CABUGATAN Y MACARAMBON CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In the prosecution of offenses involving this provision of the statute, it is necessary that the following elements be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefore.[39] What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.[40]
	GR No. 135378 2004-04-14	PEOPLE v. ANGELITO AMBROSIO Y CAMPOS AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As to the penalty imposed by the trial court on appellant Que, the Court finds the same to be in accord with the provisions of R.A. 6425 as amended by R.A. No. 7659. The penalty prescribed for the consummated sale of 200 grams of shabu without authority of law is reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00. Under Article 63 (No. 2) of the Revised Penal Code, the lesser penalty is applied when there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the offense. In the case at bar, the prosecution did not allege or prove the attendance of any modifying circumstance to justify the imposition of the extreme penalty. Hence, the trial court did not err in imposing upon appellant Que the penalty of reclusion perpetua.[66]
	GR No. 135378 2004-04-14	PEOPLE v. ANGELITO AMBROSIO Y CAMPOS AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As to the penalty imposed by the trial court on appellant Que, the Court finds the same to be in accord with the provisions of R.A. 6425 as amended by R.A. No. 7659. The penalty prescribed for the consummated sale of 200 grams of shabu without authority of law is reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00. Under Article 63 (No. 2) of the Revised Penal Code, the lesser penalty is applied when there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the offense. In the case at bar, the prosecution did not allege or prove the attendance of any modifying circumstance to justify the imposition of the extreme penalty. Hence, the trial court did not err in imposing upon appellant Que the penalty of reclusion perpetua.[66]

PEOPLE v. LEE HOI MING