Lawyerly

GR No. 193855

2015-02-18

DEL CASTILLO, J.

It is clear from the foregoing that the prosecution was able to establish the elements of illegal sale of shabu. "Prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation."[20] Here, the Court finds no reason to doubt the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and their testimonies. The RTC and the CA are one in finding that their testimonies were direct, definite, consistent with one another in relevant points and also with the physical evidence. It bears to stress that the "findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve credibility are accorded respect when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts, or speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. The reason for this is that the trial court is in a better position to decide the credibility of witnesses, having heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals,"[21] as in this case.

GR No. 189812

2014-09-01

PEOPLE v. REYNALDO BATURI

DEL CASTILLO, J.

The Court acknowledges that "[p]rosecutions for illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation."[26] In this case, the credibility of the prosecution witnesses cannot be doubted. Aside from the fact that both lower courts are one in finding that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were direct and definite, the said testimonies are also consistent with each other and with the physical evidence. Besides, "the trial court's determination on the issue of credibility of witnesses and its consequent findings of facts must be given great weight and respect on appeal x x x. This is so because of the judicial experience that trial courts are in a better position to decide the question of credibility, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during trial."[27]

GR No. 181541

2014-08-18

PEOPLE v. MARISSA MARCELO

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Clearly, the prosecution, through the testimonies of the police officers as prosecution witnesses, was able to establish the elements of illegal sale of shabu. "Prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation."[17] The Court finds no reason to doubt the credibility of the said witnesses and their testimonies. The RTC, as sustained by the CA, found that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were direct and definite. Their testimonies were consistent on relevant matters with each other and the exhibits that were formally offered in evidence.

GR No. 174980

2011-08-31

RADITO AURELIO Y REYES v. PEOPLE

DEL CASTILLO, J.

In a prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be proven beyond reasonable doubt: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and, (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is crucial to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is evidence of the transaction, as well as the presentation in court of the corpus delicti. On the other hand, in a prosecution for illegal possession of a dangerous drug, there must be proof that "(1) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug, (2) such possession is not authorized by law, and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug."[13]

GR No. 179344

2011-08-03

PEOPLE v. EDGARDO FERMIN Y GREGORIO

PEREZ, J.

Cognate to this, while the entrenched rule is that the assessment of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court which had the opportunity to observe the demeanor, conduct or attitude of the witnesses, the findings of the lower court on this point will be reversed on appeal, if it overlooked substantial facts and circumstances which, if considered, would materially affect the result of the case.[35]

GR No. 179710

2010-06-29

PEOPLE v. ALDRIN BERDADERO Y ARMAMENTO

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation.[8] The trial court in this case, as affirmed by the CA, held that the testimonies of PO3 Balmes and PO2 Villas were unequivocal, straightforward, and consistent in material respects with each other and with other testimonies and physical evidence. We find no cogent reason to overturn said findings.

GR No. 187070

2010-02-24

PEOPLE v. ROLANDO TAMAYO Y TENA

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must first be established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence. In a prosecution for illegal possession of a dangerous drug, it must be shown that (1) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug, (2) such possession is not authorized by law, and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug.[25]

GR No. 187503

2009-09-11

PEOPLE v. TECSON LIM Y CHUA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Further, the choice of effective ways to apprehend drug dealers is within the ambit of police authority. Police officers have the expertise to determine which specific approaches are necessary to enforce their entrapment operations.[47] Thus, there was no irregularity in the performance of duty on the part of the members of the buy-bust team, even though they did not anymore conduct a test or trial buy-bust operation.

GR No. 177220

2009-04-24

PEOPLE v. RUBEN ROBLES Y NOVILINIO

CARPIO MORALES, J.

In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place; and (2) presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.[17] The existence of dangerous drugs is a condition sine qua non for conviction for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, it being the very corpus delicti of the crime.[18] Central to this requirement is the question of whether the drug submitted for laboratory examination and presented in court was actually recovered from appellant. Hence, the Court has adopted the chain of custody rule.

GR No. 181037

2009-01-19

PEOPLE v. SAIDAMEN MACATINGAG Y NAMRI

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Q Now after recovering that 2 P500 bills from the accused what will be, were you able to recover? A I recovered from the accused the money and it was SPO3 Marino Garcia who recovered the 25 grams of shabu conducted.[15] Prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation.[16] It is a fundamental rule that findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve credibility are accorded respect when no glaring errors; gross misapprehension of facts; or speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. The reason for this is that the trial court is in a better position to decide the credibility of witnesses, having heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals.[17]

GR No. 179939

2008-09-29

PEOPLE v. GERALDINE MAGAT Y PADERON

TINGA, J.

In all prosecutions for violation of R.A. No. 9165, the following elements must be proven beyond reasonable doubt: (1) proof that the transaction took place; and (2) presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.[22] The existence of dangerous drugs is a condition sine qua non for conviction for the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs, it being the very corpus delicti of the crimes.[23]

GR No. 170180

2007-11-23

ARSENIO VERGARA VALDEZ v. PEOPLE

TINGA, J,

In all prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, the following elements must concur: (1) proof that the transaction took place; and (2) presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.[35] The existence of dangerous drugs is a condition sine qua non for conviction for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, it being the very corpus delicti of the crime.[36]

GR No. 151314

2004-06-03

PEOPLE v. MARIAM BANDANG Y SALAMAT

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

In a prosecution 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;[34] and (3) that the buyer and seller were identified. A review of the records of this case reveals that the prosecution has proven all these elements.

GR No. 150735

2004-03-15

PEOPLE v. STEPHEN CADLEY Y CIANO

CARPIO MORALES, J.

operations, for as long as the rights of the accused have not been violated in the process,[20] the courts will not pass on the wisdom thereof. Neither is the fact that no money changed hands a critical factor that affects the outcome of the case at bar. There is no rule of law which requires that in buy-bust operations there must be a simultaneous exchange of the marked money and the prohibited drug between the

GR No. 144545

2004-03-10

PEOPLE v. RUBEN TIU

AZCUNA, J.

At this point, we find apropos the doctrine that the assessment of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court, which had the opportunity to observe the demeanor, conduct or attitude of the witnesses. The findings of the trial court on this point are accorded great respect and will not be reversed on appeal, unless it overlooked substantial facts and circumstances which, if considered, would materially affect the result of the case.[13] Furthermore, appellant Tiu's allegation that the PNP had been holding a grudge against him for embarrassing them during a failed operation the previous year does not inspire belief. This allegation cannot be construed as a clear and convincing evidence that the buy-bust team was driven by an improper motive when it arrested the appellants. Neither was it shown that the members of the buy-bust team were not properly performing their duty. Hence, the prosecution witnesses' testimonies on the operation deserve our full faith and credit.[14]

GR No. 148048

2004-01-15

PEOPLE v. RADZMA AHMAD Y ABDULLAH

AZCUNA, J.

The argument fails in light of the recognition of the fact that there is no rigid or textbook method in conducting buy-bust operations.[15] The choice of effective ways to apprehend drug dealers is within the ambit of police authority, as police officers are assumed to have the expertise to determine which specific approaches are necessary to enforce their entrapment operations.[16] This Court notes, moreover, that the manner by which the operation was conducted even with the change of venue was not exactly without planning. The records disclose that the poseur buyer in this case did communicate the unforeseen change with his superior, who in turn coordinated with the rest of the back-up team for the necessary adjustments.[17]

GR Nos. 146107-09

2003-12-11

PEOPLE v. ROLANDO ALMEIDA Y CALVIN

AZCUNA, J.

In all prosecutions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must first be established: 1) proof that the transaction or sale took place; and 2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.[11] A review of the records of the case reveals the absence of the second element as the prosecution failed convincingly to prove that the shabu that was marked and presented in court is the very same item that was taken from the poseur-buyer.

GR No. 153686

2003-07-22

LEANDRO A. SULLER v. SANDIGANBAYAN

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

We are not convinced. It bears emphasis that frame-up as a defense has been invariably viewed with disfavor, for it can easily be concocted[24] but very difficult to substantiate.[25] That is why once the elements of a crime have been established, clear and convincing evidence[26] is required to prove this defense. Petitioner failed to discharge this burden in the instant case.

GR No. 149878

2003-07-01

PEOPLE v. TIU WON CHUA

PUNO, J.

In a prosecution for illegal possession of a dangerous drug, it must be shown that (1) appellants were in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug, (2) such possession is not authorized by law, and (3) the appellants were freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug.[14] We also note that the crime under consideration is malum prohibitum, hence, lack of criminal intent or good faith does not exempt appellants from criminal liability. Mere possession of a regulated drug without legal authority is punishable under the Dangerous Drugs Act.[15]

	GR No. 193855 2015-02-18	PEOPLE v. VIRGILIO LARGO PERONDO DEL CASTILLO, J.
It is clear from the foregoing that the prosecution was able to establish the elements of illegal sale of shabu. "Prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation."[20] Here, the Court finds no reason to doubt the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and their testimonies. The RTC and the CA are one in finding that their testimonies were direct, definite, consistent with one another in relevant points and also with the physical evidence. It bears to stress that the "findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve credibility are accorded respect when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts, or speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. The reason for this is that the trial court is in a better position to decide the credibility of witnesses, having heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals,"[21] as in this case.
	GR No. 189812 2014-09-01	PEOPLE v. REYNALDO BATURI DEL CASTILLO, J.
The Court acknowledges that "[p]rosecutions for illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation."[26] In this case, the credibility of the prosecution witnesses cannot be doubted. Aside from the fact that both lower courts are one in finding that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were direct and definite, the said testimonies are also consistent with each other and with the physical evidence. Besides, "the trial court's determination on the issue of credibility of witnesses and its consequent findings of facts must be given great weight and respect on appeal x x x. This is so because of the judicial experience that trial courts are in a better position to decide the question of credibility, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during trial."[27]
	GR No. 181541 2014-08-18	PEOPLE v. MARISSA MARCELO DEL CASTILLO, J.
Clearly, the prosecution, through the testimonies of the police officers as prosecution witnesses, was able to establish the elements of illegal sale of shabu. "Prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation."[17] The Court finds no reason to doubt the credibility of the said witnesses and their testimonies. The RTC, as sustained by the CA, found that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were direct and definite. Their testimonies were consistent on relevant matters with each other and the exhibits that were formally offered in evidence.
	GR No. 174980 2011-08-31	RADITO AURELIO Y REYES v. PEOPLE DEL CASTILLO, J.
In a prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be proven beyond reasonable doubt: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and, (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is crucial to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is evidence of the transaction, as well as the presentation in court of the corpus delicti. On the other hand, in a prosecution for illegal possession of a dangerous drug, there must be proof that "(1) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug, (2) such possession is not authorized by law, and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug."[13]
	GR No. 179344 2011-08-03	PEOPLE v. EDGARDO FERMIN Y GREGORIO PEREZ, J.
Cognate to this, while the entrenched rule is that the assessment of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court which had the opportunity to observe the demeanor, conduct or attitude of the witnesses, the findings of the lower court on this point will be reversed on appeal, if it overlooked substantial facts and circumstances which, if considered, would materially affect the result of the case.[35]
	GR No. 179710 2010-06-29	PEOPLE v. ALDRIN BERDADERO Y ARMAMENTO DEL CASTILLO, J.
Prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation.[8] The trial court in this case, as affirmed by the CA, held that the testimonies of PO3 Balmes and PO2 Villas were unequivocal, straightforward, and consistent in material respects with each other and with other testimonies and physical evidence. We find no cogent reason to overturn said findings.
	GR No. 187070 2010-02-24	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO TAMAYO Y TENA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must first be established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence. In a prosecution for illegal possession of a dangerous drug, it must be shown that (1) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug, (2) such possession is not authorized by law, and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug.[25]
	GR No. 187503 2009-09-11	PEOPLE v. TECSON LIM Y CHUA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Further, the choice of effective ways to apprehend drug dealers is within the ambit of police authority. Police officers have the expertise to determine which specific approaches are necessary to enforce their entrapment operations.[47] Thus, there was no irregularity in the performance of duty on the part of the members of the buy-bust team, even though they did not anymore conduct a test or trial buy-bust operation.
	GR No. 177220 2009-04-24	PEOPLE v. RUBEN ROBLES Y NOVILINIO CARPIO MORALES, J.
In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place; and (2) presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.[17] The existence of dangerous drugs is a condition sine qua non for conviction for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, it being the very corpus delicti of the crime.[18] Central to this requirement is the question of whether the drug submitted for laboratory examination and presented in court was actually recovered from appellant. Hence, the Court has adopted the chain of custody rule.
	GR No. 181037 2009-01-19	PEOPLE v. SAIDAMEN MACATINGAG Y NAMRI YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Q Now after recovering that 2 P500 bills from the accused what will be, were you able to recover? A I recovered from the accused the money and it was SPO3 Marino Garcia who recovered the 25 grams of shabu conducted.[15] Prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation.[16] It is a fundamental rule that findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve credibility are accorded respect when no glaring errors; gross misapprehension of facts; or speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. The reason for this is that the trial court is in a better position to decide the credibility of witnesses, having heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals.[17]
	GR No. 179939 2008-09-29	PEOPLE v. GERALDINE MAGAT Y PADERON TINGA, J.
In all prosecutions for violation of R.A. No. 9165, the following elements must be proven beyond reasonable doubt: (1) proof that the transaction took place; and (2) presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.[22] The existence of dangerous drugs is a condition sine qua non for conviction for the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs, it being the very corpus delicti of the crimes.[23]
	GR No. 170180 2007-11-23	ARSENIO VERGARA VALDEZ v. PEOPLE TINGA, J,
In all prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, the following elements must concur: (1) proof that the transaction took place; and (2) presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.[35] The existence of dangerous drugs is a condition sine qua non for conviction for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, it being the very corpus delicti of the crime.[36]
	GR No. 151314 2004-06-03	PEOPLE v. MARIAM BANDANG Y SALAMAT SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In a prosecution 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;[34] and (3) that the buyer and seller were identified. A review of the records of this case reveals that the prosecution has proven all these elements.
	GR No. 150735 2004-03-15	PEOPLE v. STEPHEN CADLEY Y CIANO CARPIO MORALES, J.
operations, for as long as the rights of the accused have not been violated in the process,[20] the courts will not pass on the wisdom thereof. Neither is the fact that no money changed hands a critical factor that affects the outcome of the case at bar. There is no rule of law which requires that in buy-bust operations there must be a simultaneous exchange of the marked money and the prohibited drug between the
	GR No. 144545 2004-03-10	PEOPLE v. RUBEN TIU AZCUNA, J.
At this point, we find apropos the doctrine that the assessment of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court, which had the opportunity to observe the demeanor, conduct or attitude of the witnesses. The findings of the trial court on this point are accorded great respect and will not be reversed on appeal, unless it overlooked substantial facts and circumstances which, if considered, would materially affect the result of the case.[13] Furthermore, appellant Tiu's allegation that the PNP had been holding a grudge against him for embarrassing them during a failed operation the previous year does not inspire belief. This allegation cannot be construed as a clear and convincing evidence that the buy-bust team was driven by an improper motive when it arrested the appellants. Neither was it shown that the members of the buy-bust team were not properly performing their duty. Hence, the prosecution witnesses' testimonies on the operation deserve our full faith and credit.[14]
	GR No. 148048 2004-01-15	PEOPLE v. RADZMA AHMAD Y ABDULLAH AZCUNA, J.
The argument fails in light of the recognition of the fact that there is no rigid or textbook method in conducting buy-bust operations.[15] The choice of effective ways to apprehend drug dealers is within the ambit of police authority, as police officers are assumed to have the expertise to determine which specific approaches are necessary to enforce their entrapment operations.[16] This Court notes, moreover, that the manner by which the operation was conducted even with the change of venue was not exactly without planning. The records disclose that the poseur buyer in this case did communicate the unforeseen change with his superior, who in turn coordinated with the rest of the back-up team for the necessary adjustments.[17]
	GR Nos. 146107-09 2003-12-11	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO ALMEIDA Y CALVIN AZCUNA, J.
In all prosecutions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must first be established: 1) proof that the transaction or sale took place; and 2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.[11] A review of the records of the case reveals the absence of the second element as the prosecution failed convincingly to prove that the shabu that was marked and presented in court is the very same item that was taken from the poseur-buyer.
	GR No. 153686 2003-07-22	LEANDRO A. SULLER v. SANDIGANBAYAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
We are not convinced. It bears emphasis that frame-up as a defense has been invariably viewed with disfavor, for it can easily be concocted[24] but very difficult to substantiate.[25] That is why once the elements of a crime have been established, clear and convincing evidence[26] is required to prove this defense. Petitioner failed to discharge this burden in the instant case.
	GR No. 149878 2003-07-01	PEOPLE v. TIU WON CHUA PUNO, J.
In a prosecution for illegal possession of a dangerous drug, it must be shown that (1) appellants were in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug, (2) such possession is not authorized by law, and (3) the appellants were freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug.[14] We also note that the crime under consideration is malum prohibitum, hence, lack of criminal intent or good faith does not exempt appellants from criminal liability. Mere possession of a regulated drug without legal authority is punishable under the Dangerous Drugs Act.[15]

PEOPLE v. ROSDIA HAJILI Y SAKILAN