Lawyerly

GR No. 191754

2011-04-11

PERALTA, J.

It is a settled rule that in cases involving violations of the Comprehensive 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.[17] This presumption can only be overturned through clear and convincing evidence that show either of two things: (1) that they were not properly performing their duty; or (2) that they were inspired by any improper motive.[18] In the absence of clear and convincing evidence of the foregoing, as in the case at bar, this Court cannot accept the defense of bare denial and, instead, apply the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the law enforcement officers.

GR No. 174097

2010-07-21

PEOPLE v. SONNY PADUA Y REYES

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

What determines if there was, indeed, a sale of dangerous drugs in a buy-bust operation is proof of the concurrence of all the elements of the offense, to wit: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor, which the prosecution has satisfactorily established. The prosecution satisfactorily proved the illegal sale of dangerous drugs and presented in court the evidence of corpus delicti.[30]

GR No. 177237

2008-10-17

WILLIAM CHING v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

In the prosecution of sale of dangerous drugs, the concurrence of all the following elements must concur: (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 material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti. [25]

GR No. 183591

2008-10-14

PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO v. GOVERNMENT OF REPUBLIC PEACE PANEL ON ANCESTRAL DOMAIN

CARPIO MORALES, J.

Meanwhile, then MILF Chairman Salamat Hashim passed away on July 13, 2003 and he was replaced by Al Haj Murad, who was then the chief peace negotiator of the MILF. Murad's position as chief peace negotiator was taken over by Mohagher Iqbal.[6]

GR No. 179036

2008-07-28

PEOPLE v. CARLITO MATEO Y PATAWID

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

For the successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the following elements must be proven: (1) the identities of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[22] What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.[23]

GR No. 179478

2008-07-28

PEOPLE v. JINGGOY MATEO Y RODRIGUEZ

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Second, the presumption that the public officers performed their duties regularly during the buy-bust operation was not overturned. Restated, the rule is that the testimonies of police officers involved in a buy-bust operation deserve full faith and credit, given the presumption that they have performed their duties regularly.[52] This presumption can be overturned if clear and convincing evidence is presented to prove either of two things: (1) that they were not properly performing their duty, or (2) that they were inspired by any improper motive.[53] In this case, appellant failed to present said evidence.

GR No. 176735

2008-06-26

PEOPLE v. JERRY SANTOS Y MACOL

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

For the successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the following elements must be proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[51] What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.[52]

GR NO. 172019

2007-02-12

PEOPLE v. BOISAN CABUGATAN Y MACARAMBON

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

In the prosecution of offenses involving this provision of the statute, it is necessary that the following elements be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefore.[39] What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.[40]

GR NO. 170234

2007-02-08

PEOPLE v. BERNARDO F. NICOLAS

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

As to the absence of a pre-arranged signal, same is not fatal to the cause of the prosecution. The employment of a pre-arranged signal, or the lack of it, is not indispensable in a buy-bust operation. What determines if there was, indeed, a sale of dangerous drugs is proof of the concurrence of all the elements of the offense. A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment which has repeatedly been accepted to be a valid means of arresting violators of the Dangerous Drugs Law.[29] The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefore.[30] What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.[31]

GR No. 140679

2004-01-14

PEOPLE v. MANNY A. DOMINGCIL

CALLEJO, SR., J.

What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence.[18] In this case, the prosecution adduced proof beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant sold one (1) kilo of marijuana to poseur-buyer SPO1 Orlando Dalusong in the entrapment operation. q How has the case involving drug or marijuana involving the accused brought to your attention or to your office, for that matter? a Our informant by the name of Belrey Oliver tipped of (sic) to us that he met Manny Domingcil at the Upholstery Shop along Ablan Avenue and he also informed us that he ordered P500.00 worth of marijuana.

GR No. 147230

2003-04-29

PEOPLE v. REYNALDO REMERATA Y REMOQUILLO

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

It has been held that the testimonies of police officers involved in a buy-bust operation deserve full faith and credit, given the presumption that they have performed their duties regularly. This presumption can be overturned if clear and convincing evidence is presented to prove either of two things: (1) that they were not properly performing their duty, or (2) that they were inspired by any improper motive.[6] Appellant failed to show that these two conditions were present. He merely enumerated seven "badges of improbability" as to whether the buy-bust indeed took place, saying that these should have militated against the presumption of regularity.

	GR No. 191754 2011-04-11	PEOPLE v. GREGORIO FELIPE Y CALINGANGAN PERALTA, J.
It is a settled rule that in cases involving violations of the Comprehensive 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.[17] This presumption can only be overturned through clear and convincing evidence that show either of two things: (1) that they were not properly performing their duty; or (2) that they were inspired by any improper motive.[18] In the absence of clear and convincing evidence of the foregoing, as in the case at bar, this Court cannot accept the defense of bare denial and, instead, apply the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the law enforcement officers.
	GR No. 174097 2010-07-21	PEOPLE v. SONNY PADUA Y REYES LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
What determines if there was, indeed, a sale of dangerous drugs in a buy-bust operation is proof of the concurrence of all the elements of the offense, to wit: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor, which the prosecution has satisfactorily established. The prosecution satisfactorily proved the illegal sale of dangerous drugs and presented in court the evidence of corpus delicti.[30]
	GR No. 177237 2008-10-17	WILLIAM CHING v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In the prosecution of sale of dangerous drugs, the concurrence of all the following elements must concur: (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 material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti. [25]
	GR No. 183591 2008-10-14	PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO v. GOVERNMENT OF REPUBLIC PEACE PANEL ON ANCESTRAL DOMAIN CARPIO MORALES, J.
Meanwhile, then MILF Chairman Salamat Hashim passed away on July 13, 2003 and he was replaced by Al Haj Murad, who was then the chief peace negotiator of the MILF. Murad's position as chief peace negotiator was taken over by Mohagher Iqbal.[6]
	GR No. 179036 2008-07-28	PEOPLE v. CARLITO MATEO Y PATAWID CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
For the successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the following elements must be proven: (1) the identities of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[22] What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.[23]
	GR No. 179478 2008-07-28	PEOPLE v. JINGGOY MATEO Y RODRIGUEZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Second, the presumption that the public officers performed their duties regularly during the buy-bust operation was not overturned. Restated, the rule is that the testimonies of police officers involved in a buy-bust operation deserve full faith and credit, given the presumption that they have performed their duties regularly.[52] This presumption can be overturned if clear and convincing evidence is presented to prove either of two things: (1) that they were not properly performing their duty, or (2) that they were inspired by any improper motive.[53] In this case, appellant failed to present said evidence.
	GR No. 176735 2008-06-26	PEOPLE v. JERRY SANTOS Y MACOL CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
For the successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the following elements must be proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[51] What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.[52]
	GR NO. 172019 2007-02-12	PEOPLE v. BOISAN CABUGATAN Y MACARAMBON CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In the prosecution of offenses involving this provision of the statute, it is necessary that the following elements be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefore.[39] What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.[40]
	GR NO. 170234 2007-02-08	PEOPLE v. BERNARDO F. NICOLAS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As to the absence of a pre-arranged signal, same is not fatal to the cause of the prosecution. The employment of a pre-arranged signal, or the lack of it, is not indispensable in a buy-bust operation. What determines if there was, indeed, a sale of dangerous drugs is proof of the concurrence of all the elements of the offense. A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment which has repeatedly been accepted to be a valid means of arresting violators of the Dangerous Drugs Law.[29] The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefore.[30] What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.[31]
	GR No. 140679 2004-01-14	PEOPLE v. MANNY A. DOMINGCIL CALLEJO, SR., J.
What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence.[18] In this case, the prosecution adduced proof beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant sold one (1) kilo of marijuana to poseur-buyer SPO1 Orlando Dalusong in the entrapment operation. q How has the case involving drug or marijuana involving the accused brought to your attention or to your office, for that matter? a Our informant by the name of Belrey Oliver tipped of (sic) to us that he met Manny Domingcil at the Upholstery Shop along Ablan Avenue and he also informed us that he ordered P500.00 worth of marijuana.
	GR No. 147230 2003-04-29	PEOPLE v. REYNALDO REMERATA Y REMOQUILLO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
It has been held that the testimonies of police officers involved in a buy-bust operation deserve full faith and credit, given the presumption that they have performed their duties regularly. This presumption can be overturned if clear and convincing evidence is presented to prove either of two things: (1) that they were not properly performing their duty, or (2) that they were inspired by any improper motive.[6] Appellant failed to show that these two conditions were present. He merely enumerated seven "badges of improbability" as to whether the buy-bust indeed took place, saying that these should have militated against the presumption of regularity.

PEOPLE v. AGNES PADASIN Y CHAKITON