Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. SALVADOR DUMLAO Y AGLIAM

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 191727 2014-03-31	PEOPLE v. MANUEL APLAT Y SUBLINO DEL CASTILLO, J.
"In prosecutions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following must be proven: (1) that the transaction or sale took place; (2) the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller were identified."[19] "The commission of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs requires merely the consummation of the selling transaction, which happens the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller. Settled is the rule that as long as the police officer went through the operation as a buyer and his offer was accepted by appellant and the dangerous drugs delivered to the former, the crime is considered consummated by the delivery of the goods.[20]
	GR No. 188841 2013-03-06	PEOPLE v. JAIME FERNANDEZ Y HERTEZ DEL CASTILLO, J.
Indeed, as intimated by the appellant, prosecutions involving illegal drugs largely depend on the credibility of police officers serving as prosecution witnesses.[16] When a case involves violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, "credence should be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses especially when they are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there be evidence to the contrary."[17] In this regard and as this Court held in People v. Dela Cruz,[18] "the rule is that the findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings, are accorded respect, if not conclusive effect. This is more true if such findings were affirmed by the appellate court[, because in such a case,] said findings are generally binding upon this Court."
	GR No. 179497 2012-01-25	PEOPLE v. RENANDANG MAMARUNCAS DEL CASTILLO, J.
Against the damning evidence adduced by the prosecution, appellants could only muster mere denial. As ruled in various cases by the Court, denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence is inherently a weak defense as it is negative and self-serving. "As between the categorical testimony that rings of truth on one hand, and a bare denial on the other, the former is generally held to prevail."[37]
	GR No. 185166 2011-01-26	PEOPLE v. MARK LESTER DELA ROSA Y SUELLO PEREZ, J.
In every prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like marijuana, the following elements must be sufficiently proved to sustain a conviction therefor: (1) the identity of the buyer, as well as the seller, the object and consideration of the sale; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[35] What is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the dangerous drugs seized as evidence. We reiterate the meaning of the term corpus delicti which is the actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged.[36] The commission of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like marijuana, requires merely the consummation of the selling transaction, which happens the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller. Settled is the rule that as long as the police officer went through the operation as a buyer and his offer was accepted by appellant and the dangerous drugs delivered to the former; the crime is considered consummated by the delivery of the goods.[37]
	GR No. 179038 2010-05-06	PEOPLE v. JOSEPH SERRANO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Mere denial cannot prevail over the positive testimony of a witness; it is self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. As between the categorical testimony that rings of truth, on one hand, and a bare denial, on the other, the former is generally held to prevail.[33]
	GR No. 179717 2010-02-05	PEOPLE v. NIEVA ALBERTO Y DE NIEVA DEL CASTILLO, J.
In a successful prosecution for offenses involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the following elements must concur: (1) the identities of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof.[9] What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually occurred, coupled with the presentation in court of the substance seized as evidence.[10]
	GR No. 184957 2009-10-27	PEOPLE v. GRACE VENTURA Y NATIVIDAD CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Accused-appellant failed to adduce evidence to substantiate her claim of irregularity in the performance of duty on the part of the police officers. This bare allegation of irregularity in the performance of duty remained self-serving and bereft of any supporting evidence.[33] Neither was any ill motive imputed on the part of the police officers, thus failing to buttress the defense's claim of frame-up. Against the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, accused-appellant's plain denial of the offenses charged, unsubstantiated by any credible and convincing evidence, must simply fail.[34] This Court realizes the disastrous consequences on the enforcement of law and order, not to mention the well being of society, if the courts accept in every instance this form of defense, which can be so easily fabricated. It is precisely for this reason that the legal presumption that official duty has been regularly performed exists. If she were truly aggrieved, it is quite surprising why accused-appellant did not even attempt to file a criminal or an administrative complaint, e.g., for planting drugs, against the arresting officers. Such inaction runs counter to the normal human conduct and behavior of one who feels truly aggrieved by the act complained of.[35] The totality of the evidence points to the fact of the sale of the prohibited drug, with the prosecution witnesses clearly identifying accused-appellant as the offender.
	GR No. 186138 2009-09-11	PEOPLE v. LORETO DARIA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
From the foregoing disquisition, it can easily be gleaned that non-compliance with the procedural requirements under Republic Act No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations relative to the custody, photographing and drug-testing of the apprehended persons, are not serious flaws that can render void the seizures and custody of drugs in a buy-bust operation. In addition, the Court has already ruled that the non-presentation of the pre-operation report is not fatal to the cause of the prosecution, because it is not indispensable in a buy-bust operation.[22]