This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2015-07-13 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| It may not be amiss to add at this point that out of the 54 cases for violation of BP 22 filed against Chua, 22 involve checks issued on November 30, 1993 or thereafter. Hence, the lower courts grievously erred in convicting Chua for those 22 cases on the basis of a purported demand letter written and sent to Chua prior to the issuance of said 22 checks. Checks can only be dishonored after they have been issued and presented for payment. Before that, dishonor cannot take place. Thus, a demand letter that precedes the issuance of checks cannot constitute as sufficient notice of dishonor within the contemplation of BP 22. It is likewise significant to note that aside from the absence of a date, the signature of Chua appearing on the questioned November 30, 1993 demand letter is not accompanied by any word or phrase indicating that he affixed his signature thereon to signify his receipt thereof. Indeed, "conviction must rest upon the strength of the evidence of the prosecution and not on the weakness of the evidence for the defense."[45] In view of the foregoing, the Court cannot accord the demand letter dated November 30, 1993 any weight and credence. Consequently, it cannot be used to support Chua's guilt of the offenses charged. | |||||
|
2008-02-06 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| In determining the credibility of prosecution witnesses regarding the conduct of buy-bust operation, the "objective test," as laid down in People v. Doria,[28] is utilized. It has been held that it is the duty of the prosecution to present a complete picture detailing the buy-bust operation from the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the consideration, until the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal subject of sale. The manner by which the initial contact was made, the offer to purchase the drug, the payment of the buy-bust money, and the delivery of the illegal drug must be the subject of strict scrutiny by courts to insure that law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit an offense.[29] | |||||
|
2008-02-06 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| In People v. Ong[30] and Cabugao v. People[31] where the "objective test" was also applied, chasmic deficiencies that similarly marked the prosecution evidence led to the absolution of the accused. In Ong, also involving Chinese nationals as accused, the prosecution evidence on the buy-bust operation was outrageously complete as the confidential informant who had sole knowledge of how the alleged illegal sale of shabu was initiated and how it was carried out was not presented as a witness.[32] In Cabugao, the prosecution witnesses could not agree on the reason that prompted them to conduct the buy-bust operation. While the first witness testified that the tip came from their informants, the second witness maintained that no informer was involved in the operation.[33] | |||||
|
2008-01-30 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| The Rules of Court requires that grounds for objection must be specified, whether orally or in writing. The result of violating this rule has been spelled out by this Court in a number of cases. In Krohn v. Court of Appeals, the counsel for the petitioner objected to the testimony of private respondent on the ground that it was privileged but did not question the testimony as hearsay. We held that "in failing to object to the testimony on the ground that it was hearsay, counsel waived his right to make such objection and, consequently, the evidence offered may be admitted." In Tan Machan v. De la Trinidad, the defendant assailed as error the admission of plaintiff's book of account. We rejected the contention and ruled that an appellate court will not consider any other ground of objection not made at the time the books were admitted in evidence. In the case at bar, the respondent did not assail in the trial court the hearsay character of the documents in question. It is too late in the day to raise the question on appeal.[25] | |||||
|
2007-08-14 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Thus, it has been held that "in failing to object to the testimony on the ground that it was hearsay, the evidence offered may be admitted."[12] Since no objection to the admissibility of Evangelista's testimony was timely made - from the time her testimony was offered[13] and up to the time her direct examination was conducted[14] - then petitioner has effectively waived[15] any objection to the admissibility thereof and his belated attempts to have her testimony excluded for being hearsay has no ground to stand on. | |||||