This case has been cited 22 times or more.
|
2016-02-01 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The rule, however, is not ironclad. A departure therefrom may be warranted when it is established that the RTC ignored, overlooked, misconstrued or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances, which, if considered, will change the outcome of the case. Considering that what is at stake here is liberty, the Court has carefully reviewed the records of the case[22] and finds that Franco should be acquitted. | |||||
|
2014-11-24 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The Court agrees with the CA that the testimonies of PO2 Tejero and PO3 Orias established beyond reasonable doubt appellant's culpability. Their narrations of what really transpired in the afternoon of October 23, 2002, from the moment the confidential infonnant disclosed to their chief the illegal activities of appellant up to the time of his arrest, deserve great respect and credence as the same emanated from the direct account of law enforcement officers who enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties. It should be noted that "[ujnless there is clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or [did] not properly [perform] their duty, their testimonies on the operation deserve full faith and credit."[18] Moreover, while appellant is correct that the presumption of regularity should not by itself prevail over the presumption of innocence, still, he must be able to present a viable defense. Here, what appellant interposed is merely denial and a claim of frame-up. "[F]or the claim of frame-up to prosper, the defense must be able to present clear and convincing evidence to overcome [the] presumption of regularity,"[19] which it failed to do. Hence, the Court finds no error on the part of the courts below in upholding the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation. | |||||
|
2014-03-31 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| It bears stressing that the Court has already held in numerous cases[30] that non-compliance with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 is not fatal and will not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items was properly preserved and safeguarded through an unbroken chain of custody, as further illustrated below. | |||||
|
2012-02-29 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Clearly gleaned from the above testimony are the details relating to the initial contact between PO2 Memoracion and the accused-appellant; the said police officer's offer to purchase; the statement of the amount he was willing to pay; and the consummation of the sale by the accused-appellant's delivery of the shabu to PO2 Memoracion. On this matter, our ruling in People v. Agulay[52] dictates that "[a]bsent any proof of motive to falsely accuse [the accused-appellant] of such a grave offense, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and the findings of the trial court with respect to the credibility of witnesses shall prevail over that of the accused-appellant." | |||||
|
2011-11-16 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment, which in recent years has been accepted as valid and effective mode of arresting violators of the Dangerous Drugs Law.[18] It has been proven to be an effective way of unveiling the identities of drug dealers and of luring them out of obscurity.[19] To determine whether there was a valid entrapment or whether proper procedures were undertaken in effecting the buy-bust operation, it is incumbent upon the courts to make sure that the details of the operation are clearly and adequately established through relevant, material and competent evidence. The courts cannot merely rely on, but must apply with studied restraint, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by law enforcement agents. Courts are duty-bound to exercise extra vigilance in trying drug cases and should not allow themselves to be used as instruments of abuse and injustice lest innocent persons are made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses.[20] | |||||
|
2011-06-22 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, in People v. Agulay, [16] we held that: Non-compliance with [Section 21, 19 Article II of Republic Act No. 9165] is not fatal and will not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. In People v. Del Monte, this Court held that what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. x x x.[17] | |||||
|
2011-06-15 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In People v. Sembrano [34] citing People v. Agulay, [35] this Court held that a buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment which in recent years has been accepted as a valid and effective mode of apprehending drug pushers. If carried out with due regard for constitutional and legal safeguards, a buy-bust operation, as in this case, deserves judicial sanction. [36] Moreover, in a buy-bust operation, the violator is caught in flagrante delicto and the police officers conducting the same are not only authorized but also duty-bound to apprehend the violator and consequently search him for anything that may have been part of or used in the commission of the crime. [37] | |||||
|
2011-06-08 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Generally, non-compliance with Secs. 21 and 86 of RA 9165 does not mean that no buy-bust operation against appellant ever took place.[25] The prosecution's failure to submit in evidence the required physical inventory and photograph of the evidence confiscated pursuant to Sec. 21, Art. II of RA 9165 will not discharge the accused from the crime. Non-compliance with said section is not fatal and will not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible.[26] | |||||
|
2011-01-12 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The Court reiterated such ruling in People v. Agulay:[16] | |||||
|
2010-08-25 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| (1) consented searches; (2) as an incident to a lawful arrest; (3) searches of vessels and aircraft for violation of immigration, customs, and drug laws; (4) searches of moving vehicles; (5) searches of automobiles at borders or constructive borders; (6) where the prohibited articles are in "plain view;" (7) searches of buildings and premises to enforce fire, sanitary, and building regulations; and (8) "stop and frisk" operations.[20] (emphasis underscoring supplied) | |||||
|
2010-08-25 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The Court held succinctly in People v. Agulay:[12] | |||||
|
2010-08-16 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment which in recent years has been accepted as a valid and effective mode of apprehending drug pushers.[14] If carried out with due regard for constitutional and legal safeguards, a buy-bust operation, such as the one involving appellant, deserves judicial sanction. Consequently, the warrantless arrest and warrantless search and seizure conducted on the person of appellant were allowed under the circumstances. The search, incident to his lawful arrest, needed no warrant to sustain its validity.[15] Thus, there is no doubt that the sachets of shabu recovered during the legitimate buy-bust operation, are admissible and were properly admitted in evidence against him.[16] | |||||
|
2010-07-26 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| But, as this Court has held in recent cases, i.e. People v. Agulay, [21] People v. Pringas,[22] and in the more recent case of People v. Quebral,[23] failure to comply strictly with those requirements will not render the seizure of the prohibited drugs invalid for so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items are properly preserved by the apprehending officers. Noteworthy as well is the proviso in the particular section of the Implementing Rules which states that `non-compliance with the stipulated procedure, under justifiable grounds, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items, for as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officers.' The evident purpose of the procedure provided for is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt of or innocence of the accused. | |||||
|
2010-02-09 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment which in recent years has been accepted as a valid and effective mode of apprehending drug pushers. In a buy-bust operation, the idea to commit a crime originates from the offender, without anybody inducing or prodding him to commit the offense.[34] If carried out with due regard for constitutional and legal safeguards, a buy-bust operation deserves judicial sanction.[35] Thus, from the very nature of a buy-bust operation, the absence of a warrant does not make the arrest illegal. | |||||
|
2010-02-05 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| However, the prosecution's failure to submit in evidence the required physical inventory and photograph of the evidence confiscated will not result to appellant's acquittal of the crime charged.[23] Non-compliance with the above-provisions of RA 9165 is not fatal and will not render the arrest of an accused illegal or the items seized from her inadmissible.[24] What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the appellant.[25] | |||||
|
2010-01-25 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Absent any proof of motive to falsely accuse appellant of such a grave offense, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and the findings of the trial court with respect to the credibility of witnesses shall prevail over appellant's bare allegation.[25] | |||||
|
2009-10-27 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| All documentary, testimonial, and object pieces of evidence, including the markings on the plastic sachet containing the shabu, prove that the substance tested by the forensic chemist, whose laboratory tests were well-documented, was the same as that taken from accused-appellant. The foregoing evidence established and preserved the identity of the confiscated shabu. Moreover, the integrity of the evidence is presumed to be preserved, unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with.[38] Accused-appellant, in this case, bears the burden to make some showing that the evidence was tampered or meddled with, to overcome a presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers and a presumption that they properly discharged their duties. | |||||
|
2009-10-16 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, we have held in several cases[50] that non-compliance with Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 is not fatal and will not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[51] In the present case, the integrity of the drugs seized from appellant was preserved. The chain of custody of the drugs subject matter of the instant case was shown not to have been broken. | |||||
|
2009-09-11 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| This is not the first time that the Court is confronted with this same issue. In People v. Agulay,[18] therein accused-appellant contended that the non-compliance with the procedure in Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165, created an irregularity that overcame the presumption of regularity accorded to police authorities in the performance of their official duties. There, the Court decreed that failure to strictly follow the procedure set forth under Section 21(1), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165, did not invalidate the seizure and custody of confiscated items during the buy-bust operation, viz: The dissent agreed with accused-appellant's assertion that the police operatives failed to comply with the proper procedure in the custody of the seized drugs. It premised that non-compliance with the procedure in Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 creates an irregularity and overcomes the presumption of regularity accorded police authorities in the performance of their official duties. This assumption is without merit. | |||||
|
2009-06-22 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Apart from his defense that he is a victim of a frame-up and extortion by the police officers, accused-appellant could not present any other viable defense. While the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by law enforcement agents should not by itself prevail over the presumption of innocence, for the claim of frame-up to prosper, the defense must be able to present clear and convincing evidence to overcome this presumption of regularity.[27] This, appellant failed to do. | |||||
|
2009-06-18 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, we have held in several cases[37] that non-compliance with Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 is not fatal and will not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[38] In the case at bar, the integrity of the drug seized from appellants was preserved. The chain of custody of the drug subject matter of the instant case was shown not to have been broken. | |||||
|
2009-05-08 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| In order to successfully prosecute an accused for illegal sale of drugs, the prosecution must be able to prove the following elements: (1) identities of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[17] What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale or had actually taken place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.[18] | |||||