Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. LI YIN CHU

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 172092 2009-12-16	PEOPLE v. VS.JOEY TION Y CABADDU VELASCO JR., J.
The identities of Joey, as seller, and P/Insp. Castillo, as poseur-buyer, are, thus, certain. The fact of the payment of PhP 6,250 was proved and admitted by Joey. The delivery of 5.2 kilos of marijuana by Joey to poseur-buyer P/Insp. Castillo was likewise proved and admitted by Joey. With these certainties, it is clear that Joey was caught in flagrante delicto of selling marijuana to poseur-buyer P/Insp. Castillo. The well-entrenched principle is that the accused commits the crime of illegal sale of drugs as soon as he consummates the sale transaction whether payment precedes or follows delivery of the drugs sold.[27]
	GR No. 179700 2009-06-22	GWYN QUINICOT Y CURATIVO v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Settled is the rule that the absence of a prior surveillance or test buy does not affect the legality of the buy-bust operation. There is no textbook method of conducting buy-bust operations. The Court has left to the discretion of police authorities the selection of effective means to apprehend drug dealers.[27] A prior surveillance, much less a lengthy one, is not necessary, especially where the police operatives are accompanied by their informant during the entrapment.[28] Flexibility is a trait of good police work.[29] We have held that when time is of the essence, the police may dispense with the need for prior surveillance.[30] In the instant case, having been accompanied by the informant to the person who was peddling the dangerous drugs, the policemen need not have conducted any prior surveillance before they undertook the buy-bust operation.
	GR No. 164580 2009-02-06	NORGIE CRUZ Y CASTRO v. PEOPLE CARPIO, J.
The absence of a prior surveillance or test buy does not affect the legality of the buy-bust operation. There is no textbook method of conducting buy-bust operations. The Court has left to the discretion of police authorities the selection of effective means to apprehend drug dealers. Furthermore, if a police operation requires immediate implementation, time is of the essence and only hasty preparations are sometimes possible. What is important is whether the speed of preparation compromised the rights of the accused.[18]
	GR No. 178876 2008-06-27	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO CONCEPCION Y CLEMENTE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We do not agree. Settled is the rule that the absence of a prior surveillance or test buy does not affect the legality of the buy-bust operation. There is no textbook method of conducting buy-bust operations. The Court has left to the discretion of police authorities the selection of effective means to apprehend drug dealers.[40] A prior surveillance, much less a lengthy one, is not necessary especially where the police operatives are accompanied by their informant during the entrapment.[41] Flexibility is a trait of good police work.[42] In the instant case, the entrapment or buy-bust operation was conducted without the necessity of any prior surveillance because the confidential informant, who was previously tasked by the buy-bust team leader to order dangerous drugs from appellant Alfredo Concepcion, accompanied the team to the person who was peddling the dangerous drugs.
	GR NO. 177569 2007-11-28	PEOPLE v. RENATO DE GUZMAN Y MIRANDA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We have ruled that peddlers of illicit drugs have been known, with ever increasing casualness and recklessness, to offer and sell their wares for the right price to anybody, be they strangers or not, what matters being 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 the sale and delivery of the prohibited drugs.[23] Drug peddlers have become exceedingly daring and openly defiant of the law.[24] Drug pushing when done on a small-scale belongs to those types of crimes that may be committed any time and at any place.[25]
	GR No. 175326 2007-11-28	PEOPLE v. EDGARDO SANTIAGO Y GATDULA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Well-settled is the rule that the testimony of an informant who witnessed the illegal sale of shabu is not essential for conviction and may be dispensed with if the poseur-buyer testified on the same, because the informant's testimony would merely corroborate that of the poseur-buyer.[66]
	GR NO. 170234 2007-02-08	PEOPLE v. BERNARDO F. NICOLAS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Settled is the rule that the absence of a prior surveillance or test-buy does not affect the legality of the buy-bust operation. There is no textbook method of conducting buy-bust operations. The Court has left to the discretion of police authorities the selection of effective means to apprehend drug dealers.[24] A prior surveillance, much less a lengthy one, is not necessary especially where the police operatives are accompanied by their informant during the entrapment.[25] Flexibility is a trait of good police work.[26] In the case at bar, the buy-bust operation was conducted without need of any prior surveillance for the reason that the informant accompanied the policemen to the person who is peddling the dangerous drugs.
	GR No. 156890 2004-07-13	PEOPLE v. LOLITA CASOLOCAN Y MANAYAGA CARPIO MORALES, J.
Informers are almost always never presented in court to preserve their cover so they can continue their invaluable service to the police.[43] Except for a situation where the accused vehemently denies selling any prohibited drugs, coupled with inconsistent testimonies of the arresting officers or with the possibility that there exist reasons to believe that the arresting officer had motives to testify falsely against the accused, or in a situation where it was only the informant-poseur-buyer who witnessed the entire transaction,[44] the testimony of the informant is not essential for conviction to lie. For it would merely be corroborative and cumulative.[45] What is crucial is that the accused was caught red-handed, in the act of trafficking[46] illegal drugs.