Lawyerly

GR No. 189812

2014-09-01

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Moreover, there is no allegation or evidence whatsoever that the members of the entrapment team were actuated by improper motive or were not performing their duty in accordance with law. They are therefore entitled to the legal presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions and their testimonies are accorded full faith and credence.[32]

GR No. 197788

2012-02-29

RODEL LUZ Y ONG v. PEOPLE

SERENO, J.

We find the Petition to be impressed with merit, but not for the particular reasons alleged. In criminal cases, an appeal throws the entire case wide open for review and the reviewing tribunal can correct errors, though unassigned in the appealed judgment, or even reverse the trial court's decision based on grounds other than those that the parties raised as errors.[9]

GR No. 177324

2011-03-30

PEOPLE v. REYNALD DELA CRUZ Y LIBANTOCIA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

It is equally settled that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary.[34] Dela Cruz utterly failed to prove that in testifying against him, PO2 Ocampo was motivated by reasons other than the duty to curb the sale of prohibited drugs. There is no proof of any ill motive or odious intent on the part of the police authorities to impute falsely such a serious crime to Dela Cruz.[35]

GR No. 181318

2009-04-16

PEOPLE v. GERMAN AGOJO Y LUNA

TINGA, J.

There is similarly little weight in the claim of appellant that the inconsistencies revealed by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) certification in the serial numbers of the marked money, as well as the fact that only a fraction of the money was recovered, should exonerate him. The marked money used in the buy-bust operation is not indispensable in drug cases.[41] Otherwise stated, the absence of marked money does not create a hiatus in the evidences provided that the prosecution adequately proves the sale.[42] Only appellant would know what happened to the rest of the marked money since only P10,000.00 out of the P70,000.00 was recovered from him. In any event, the partial recovery of the marked money from appellant would indicate that the buy-bust operation did take place.

GR No. 173790

2007-10-11

PEOPLE v. RUSSEL NAVARRO Y MARMOJADA

CARPIO MORALES, J.

Unless there is 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.[14]

GR NO. 174067

2007-08-29

PEOPLE v. DANTE JOSE DIVINA

CARPIO MORALES, J.

Unless there is clear and convincing evidence that PO1 Mapula was inspired by any improper motive or was not properly performing his duty, and none has been adduced by the defense, his testimony with respect to the buy-bust operation deserves full faith and credit.[19]

GR NO. 172369

2007-03-07

PEOPLE v. ENRIQUE LOPEZ

GARCIA, J.

There is absolutely no evidence to show that the members of the buy-bust team who were presented as witnesses were motivated by any reason other than their official duty. If indeed there was a frame-up, the officers must have known appellants prior to the incident.[15] However, appellant Lopez himself admitted neither knowing these police officers nor having any kind of history with them.

GR NO. 168773

2006-10-27

ELIZA ABUAN v. PEOPLE

CALLEJO, SR., J.

The mere denial by petitioner of the crime charged and her bare claim of being the victim of a frame-up by de Vera and Gamboa cannot prevail over the positive and steadfast testimonies of the police officers. Their testimonies were corroborated by the inventory/receipt of property, stating that, indeed, 57 small heat-sealed plastic sachets containing methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) weighing 5.67 grams were found in a drawer in petitioner's bedroom. The police officers are presumed to have performed their duties in good faith, in accordance with law. Absent any clear and convincing evidence that such officers had ill or improper motive or were not performing their duties, their testimonies with respect to the surveillance operation, the implementation of search warrant, and the seizure of the regulated drug in the house of petitioner must be accorded full faith and credence.[67] Like alibi, the defense of denial and frame-up had been invariably viewed by the courts with disfavor. Denial is a negative of self-serving defense, while frame-up is as easily concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of R.A. No. 6425, as amended.[68] For the defense of frame-up to prosper, the evidence must be clear and convincing.[69]

GR NO. 152398

2005-04-14

EDGAR CRISOSTOMO v. SANDIGANBAYAN

CARPIO, J.

capital offense. An appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for review.[15] The reviewing tribunal can correct errors though unassigned in the appeal, or even reverse the lower court's decision on grounds other than those the parties raised as errors.[16]

GR No. 150050

2004-06-17

RUFINO LAPUZ Y MENDOZA v. PEOPLE

AZCUNA, J.

The marked money itself was offered in evidence after it was identified by PO3 Pineda as the same ones he paid to petitioner.[11] While PO3 Pineda could not remember the exact serial numbers of the bills, his identification of the bills is sufficient and the logbook would only serve to corroborate his testimony. Besides, it was not even essential for the prosecution to present the marked money as its absence does not create a hiatus in the evidence provided that the prosecution adequately proves the sale.[12]

GR No. 151314

2004-06-03

PEOPLE v. MARIAM BANDANG Y SALAMAT

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

In a last ditch effort to secure an acquittal, appellants claim that they were victims of frame-up[52] and extortion. Appellants' defense must fail. For a police officer to frame them up, he must have known them prior to the incident.[53] This is not the situation here. The informant had to introduce PO1 Carpentero to appellants before she could negotiate with them the sale of shabu. Appellants themselves admitted that prior to their arrest, they did not know the police officers.

GR No. 143718

2004-05-19

PEOPLE v. HAIRATUL JUBAIL y KILIH alias “SHAIRA JUBAIL y AHARUL” and RUAINA NURUDDIN y MOHAMMAD alias “RUAI NURUDDIN y HARIN”

CARPIO, J.

An appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for review. The reviewing tribunal can correct errors though unassigned in the appeal, or even reverse the trial court's decision on grounds other than those the parties raised as errors.[36]

GR No. 150624

2004-02-24

PEOPLE v. PABLO DULAY

AZCUNA, J.

It is a settled rule that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary[20] suggesting ill-motive on the part of the police officers[21] or deviation from the regular performance of their duties.[22] In this case, there is no evidence showing that prosecution witness PO3 Javonillo was impelled by improper motive in testifying against appellant or that he deviated from the regular performance of his duties. Moreover, the trial court believed the testimony of PO3 Javonillo who was described to have testified "in a clear, convincing and forthright manner."[23] The findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are accorded great respect unless the trial court overlooked substantial facts and circumstances, which, if considered, would materially affect the result of the case.[24] We have carefully reviewed the records of this case, and found no reason to alter the findings of the trial court. Hence, the testimony of prosecution witness PO3 Javonillo is accorded full faith and credit.

GR No. 142885

2003-10-22

PEOPLE v. WILLIAM TIU Y LIU

AZCUNA, J.

The Court understands the importance of buy-bust operations as an effective method, sanctioned by law, of apprehending drug peddlers.[15] At the same time, it is aware that it is susceptible to mistake, harassment, extortion and abuse.[16] As the Court declared in People v. Ale:[17]

GR No. 145337

2003-10-02

PEOPLE v. LEE HOI MING

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

It is a settled rule in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act that credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary.[6]

	GR No. 189812 2014-09-01	PEOPLE v. REYNALDO BATURI DEL CASTILLO, J.
Moreover, there is no allegation or evidence whatsoever that the members of the entrapment team were actuated by improper motive or were not performing their duty in accordance with law. They are therefore entitled to the legal presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions and their testimonies are accorded full faith and credence.[32]
	GR No. 197788 2012-02-29	RODEL LUZ Y ONG v. PEOPLE SERENO, J.
We find the Petition to be impressed with merit, but not for the particular reasons alleged. In criminal cases, an appeal throws the entire case wide open for review and the reviewing tribunal can correct errors, though unassigned in the appealed judgment, or even reverse the trial court's decision based on grounds other than those that the parties raised as errors.[9]
	GR No. 177324 2011-03-30	PEOPLE v. REYNALD DELA CRUZ Y LIBANTOCIA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
It is equally settled that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary.[34] Dela Cruz utterly failed to prove that in testifying against him, PO2 Ocampo was motivated by reasons other than the duty to curb the sale of prohibited drugs. There is no proof of any ill motive or odious intent on the part of the police authorities to impute falsely such a serious crime to Dela Cruz.[35]
	GR No. 181318 2009-04-16	PEOPLE v. GERMAN AGOJO Y LUNA TINGA, J.
There is similarly little weight in the claim of appellant that the inconsistencies revealed by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) certification in the serial numbers of the marked money, as well as the fact that only a fraction of the money was recovered, should exonerate him. The marked money used in the buy-bust operation is not indispensable in drug cases.[41] Otherwise stated, the absence of marked money does not create a hiatus in the evidences provided that the prosecution adequately proves the sale.[42] Only appellant would know what happened to the rest of the marked money since only P10,000.00 out of the P70,000.00 was recovered from him. In any event, the partial recovery of the marked money from appellant would indicate that the buy-bust operation did take place.
	GR No. 173790 2007-10-11	PEOPLE v. RUSSEL NAVARRO Y MARMOJADA CARPIO MORALES, J.
Unless there is 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.[14]
	GR NO. 174067 2007-08-29	PEOPLE v. DANTE JOSE DIVINA CARPIO MORALES, J.
Unless there is clear and convincing evidence that PO1 Mapula was inspired by any improper motive or was not properly performing his duty, and none has been adduced by the defense, his testimony with respect to the buy-bust operation deserves full faith and credit.[19]
	GR NO. 172369 2007-03-07	PEOPLE v. ENRIQUE LOPEZ GARCIA, J.
There is absolutely no evidence to show that the members of the buy-bust team who were presented as witnesses were motivated by any reason other than their official duty. If indeed there was a frame-up, the officers must have known appellants prior to the incident.[15] However, appellant Lopez himself admitted neither knowing these police officers nor having any kind of history with them.
	GR NO. 168773 2006-10-27	ELIZA ABUAN v. PEOPLE CALLEJO, SR., J.
The mere denial by petitioner of the crime charged and her bare claim of being the victim of a frame-up by de Vera and Gamboa cannot prevail over the positive and steadfast testimonies of the police officers. Their testimonies were corroborated by the inventory/receipt of property, stating that, indeed, 57 small heat-sealed plastic sachets containing methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) weighing 5.67 grams were found in a drawer in petitioner's bedroom. The police officers are presumed to have performed their duties in good faith, in accordance with law. Absent any clear and convincing evidence that such officers had ill or improper motive or were not performing their duties, their testimonies with respect to the surveillance operation, the implementation of search warrant, and the seizure of the regulated drug in the house of petitioner must be accorded full faith and credence.[67] Like alibi, the defense of denial and frame-up had been invariably viewed by the courts with disfavor. Denial is a negative of self-serving defense, while frame-up is as easily concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of R.A. No. 6425, as amended.[68] For the defense of frame-up to prosper, the evidence must be clear and convincing.[69]
	GR NO. 152398 2005-04-14	EDGAR CRISOSTOMO v. SANDIGANBAYAN CARPIO, J.
capital offense. An appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for review.[15] The reviewing tribunal can correct errors though unassigned in the appeal, or even reverse the lower court's decision on grounds other than those the parties raised as errors.[16]
	GR No. 150050 2004-06-17	RUFINO LAPUZ Y MENDOZA v. PEOPLE AZCUNA, J.
The marked money itself was offered in evidence after it was identified by PO3 Pineda as the same ones he paid to petitioner.[11] While PO3 Pineda could not remember the exact serial numbers of the bills, his identification of the bills is sufficient and the logbook would only serve to corroborate his testimony. Besides, it was not even essential for the prosecution to present the marked money as its absence does not create a hiatus in the evidence provided that the prosecution adequately proves the sale.[12]
	GR No. 151314 2004-06-03	PEOPLE v. MARIAM BANDANG Y SALAMAT SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In a last ditch effort to secure an acquittal, appellants claim that they were victims of frame-up[52] and extortion. Appellants' defense must fail. For a police officer to frame them up, he must have known them prior to the incident.[53] This is not the situation here. The informant had to introduce PO1 Carpentero to appellants before she could negotiate with them the sale of shabu. Appellants themselves admitted that prior to their arrest, they did not know the police officers.
	GR No. 143718 2004-05-19	PEOPLE v. HAIRATUL JUBAIL y KILIH alias “SHAIRA JUBAIL y AHARUL” and RUAINA NURUDDIN y MOHAMMAD alias “RUAI NURUDDIN y HARIN” CARPIO, J.
An appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for review. The reviewing tribunal can correct errors though unassigned in the appeal, or even reverse the trial court's decision on grounds other than those the parties raised as errors.[36]
	GR No. 150624 2004-02-24	PEOPLE v. PABLO DULAY AZCUNA, J.
It is a settled rule that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary[20] suggesting ill-motive on the part of the police officers[21] or deviation from the regular performance of their duties.[22] In this case, there is no evidence showing that prosecution witness PO3 Javonillo was impelled by improper motive in testifying against appellant or that he deviated from the regular performance of his duties. Moreover, the trial court believed the testimony of PO3 Javonillo who was described to have testified "in a clear, convincing and forthright manner."[23] The findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are accorded great respect unless the trial court overlooked substantial facts and circumstances, which, if considered, would materially affect the result of the case.[24] We have carefully reviewed the records of this case, and found no reason to alter the findings of the trial court. Hence, the testimony of prosecution witness PO3 Javonillo is accorded full faith and credit.
	GR No. 142885 2003-10-22	PEOPLE v. WILLIAM TIU Y LIU AZCUNA, J.
The Court understands the importance of buy-bust operations as an effective method, sanctioned by law, of apprehending drug peddlers.[15] At the same time, it is aware that it is susceptible to mistake, harassment, extortion and abuse.[16] As the Court declared in People v. Ale:[17]
	GR No. 145337 2003-10-02	PEOPLE v. LEE HOI MING YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
It is a settled rule in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act that credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary.[6]

PEOPLE v. LOWELL SALUDES Y DE GUZMAN