This case has been cited 18 times or more.
|
2012-04-11 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, "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."[35] In the absence of proof of any odious intent to falsely impute a serious crime, the self-serving defenses of denial and unsubstantiated claim of frame-up of an accused can never prevail over the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.[36] | |||||
|
2011-09-28 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Even granting arguendo that the buy-bust money has not been marked, jurisprudence is clear that failure to mark the boodle money is not fatal to the cause of the prosecution. Neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any of the money used in a buy-bust operation much less is it required that the boodle money be marked.[46] Similarly, the absence of marked money does not create a hiatus in the evidence for the prosecution provided that the prosecution has adequately proved the sale.[47] Hence, the only elements necessary to consummate the crime of illegal sale of shabu is proof that the illicit transaction took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.[48] Both elements were satisfactorily proven in this case. | |||||
|
2010-05-06 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In order to overcome the presumption of regularity, jurisprudence teaches us that there must be clear and convincing evidence that the police officers did not properly perform their duties or that they were prompted with ill motive.[33] | |||||
|
2009-09-11 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Finally, accused-appellant's claim that he is a victim of a frame-up is viewed by this Court with disfavor, because being a victim can easily be feigned and fabricated. There being no proof of ill motive on the part of the police operatives to falsely accuse him 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 the claim of the accused-appellant.[25] 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, which the defense was not able to proffer. | |||||
|
2009-07-23 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Cortez's challenge about the legality of a buy-bust operation is already a closed issue. In People v. Bongalon,[6] the Court elucidated on the nature and legality of a buy-bust operation, noting that it is a form of entrapment that is resorted to for trapping and capturing felons who are pre-disposed to commit crimes. The operation is legal and has been proved to be an effective method of apprehending drug peddlers, provided due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards is undertaken.[7] Entrapment should be distinguished from instigation which has been viewed as contrary to public policy. | |||||
|
2008-09-26 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant's allegation that he is a victim of a frame-up, which has been held as a shop-worn defense of those accused in drug-related cases, is viewed by the Court with disfavor. Like the defense of alibi, frame-up is an allegation that can easily be concocted.[25] For this claim to prosper, the defense must adduce clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of regularity of official acts of government officials.[26] Absent any proof of motive to falsely accuse him 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.[27] | |||||
|
2008-09-03 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In challenging the existence of a legitimate buy-bust operation, appellant casts questionable, if not improper, motive on the part of the police officers. Unfortunately for appellant, jurisprudence instructs us that in cases involving illegal drugs, 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.[41] Where there is nothing to indicate that the witnesses for the prosecution were moved by improper motives, the presumption is that they were not so moved and their testimony, therefore, is entitled to full faith and credit.[42] In this case, the records are bereft of any indication which even remotely suggests ill motive on the part of the police officers. The following observations of the trial court are, indeed, appropriate, thus:Absent as it is in the record indications of personal interest or improper motive on their part to testify against the accused, the witnesses for the prosecution being government law enforcers and/or officials, actually present during the incident in question in the performance of their duties, are trustworthy sources. And the recollections in open court of such witnesses of the events that transpired on the occasion, given in clear and direct manner, corroborating and complimenting each other on material points, and highly probable in the natural order of things, are easy to believe and thus accorded full credence. | |||||
|
2007-08-29 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Appellant's belated questioning of the legality of his arrest does not lie. x x x [A]n accused is estopped from assailing the legality of his arrest if he failed to move to quash the information against him before his arraignment. Any objection involving the arrest or the procedure in the acquisition by the court of jurisdiction over the person must be made before he enters his plea, otherwise, the objection is deemed waived. Even in instances not allowed by law, a warrantless arrest is not a jurisdictional defect, and objection thereto is waived when a person arrested submits to arraignment without objection. The subsequent filing of the charges and the issuance of the corresponding warrant of arrest against a person illegally detained will cure the defect of that detention.[16] (Underscoring supplied) The records of the case show appellant was subjected to an inquest proceeding after his arrest.[17] And upon arraignment, appellant entered his plea without raising any objection to the manner of his arrest.[18] | |||||
|
2007-07-27 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In challenging the existence of a legitimate buy-bust operation, appellant casts questionable, if not improper, motive on the part of the police officers. Unfortunately for appellant, jurisprudence instructs us that in cases involving the sale of illegal drugs, 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.[22] Where there is nothing to indicate that the witnesses for the prosecution were moved by improper motives, the presumption is that they were not so moved and their testimony, therefore, is entitled to full faith and credit.[23] In this case, the records are bereft of any indication which even remotely suggests ill motive on the part of the police officers. The following observation of the Court of Appeals is indeed appropriate, thus: In this case, the policemen categorically identified Quiaoit as the one subject of the "buy-bust" operation who agreed to sell to PO1 Baquiran a sachet of "shabu" in front of the restroom of Golden Miles Beerhouse after he was being introduced by the informant. As police officers, PO1 Baquiran and PO2 Dueñas had in their favor the presumption of regularity of performance of duty. Furthermore, the defense failed to present any evidence to show that the police officers were improperly motivated to bear false witness against Quiaoit. While Quiaoit claimed that he was a former asset of the police and he knew the police officers who arrested him, yet, he did not impute any ill-motive as to why the police officers would implicate him to drug pushing. This fact bolsters the police officers' claim that Quiaoit was, indeed, arrested in a buy-bust operation. | |||||
|
2007-02-12 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Appellant failed to substantiate his claim that he was an unfortunate prey to a supposed ploy concocted by the police. By all indications, he did not know anyone of the members of the buy-bust team which apprehended him. There was, therefore, no motive for them to frame him up. Absent any proof of motive to falsely accuse him 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 that he was framed-up.[46] In other words, the categorical and convincing testimonies of the policemen, backed up by physical evidence, overcome the unsubstantiated claim of ill-motive by appellant. | |||||
|
2006-12-06 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Appellant's contention that the police authorities intruded his house and that he only failed to file charges against them due to lack of money could neither be believed. Appellant did not bother to present any evidence to support this contention. It likewise bears stressing that the police authorities are presumed to have performed their duty in a regular manner.[44] | |||||
|
2006-09-27 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| Appellant's challenge against the legality of "buy-bust" operations is already a closed issue. Thus, in People v. Bongalon,[15] decided January 23, 2002, the Court wrote on the nature and legality of such operation, to wit:A buy bust operation is a form of entrapment that is resorted to for trapping and capturing felons in the execution of their criminal plan. The operation is sanctioned by law and has consistently proved to be an effective method of apprehending drug peddlers. Unless there is a 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 on the operation deserve full faith and credit. In another case,[16] in upholding the constitutionality and legality of "buy-bust" operation, the Court even adopted a test to determine the authenticity thereof. Partly says the Court in that case: | |||||
|
2004-04-15 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Appellant Malit's insistence that the trial court erroneously denied him his right to new trial to present the testimony of Cesar Quiroz is likewise without merit. A motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence may only be granted if the following concur: (a) the evidence is discovered after trial; (b) such evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence; and (c) the evidence is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative, or impeaching and of such weight that, if admitted, could probably change the judgment.[125] | |||||
|
2003-06-10 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The appeal hangs mainly on the alleged lack of credibility of the prosecution witnesses and the frame-up theory. 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.[19] | |||||
|
2002-12-17 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| -- that in the middle of the night, she accompanied a person she had just met for the first time -- tests the limits of credibility.[41] Similarly unbelievable is the story of Appellant Santos that after they had gone to Mercury Drug Store, he was asked by Appellant Corpuz to bring home her son.[42] Moreover, Appellant Santos did not offer any satisfactory explanation why the police | |||||
|
2002-11-13 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| and the payment therefor. In the prosecution for the sale of dangerous drugs, the absence of marked money does not create a hiatus in the evidence for the prosecution as long as the sale of dangerous drugs is adequately proven and the drug subject of the transaction is presented before the court.[34] Neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any of the money used in a buy-bust operation. The only elements necessary to consummate the crime is proof that the illicit transaction took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.[35] Both were satisfactorily proved in the case at bar. With these circumstances, the defense of denial of accused-appellants cannot prevail. The defense of denial or frame-up, like alibi, has been viewed by the Court with disfavor for it can just as easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in most | |||||
|
2002-10-15 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| entered a plea of not guilty and participated in the trial. Settled is the rule that any objection involving the arrest or the trial court's procedure of acquiring jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before the arraignment; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived.[28] Indeed, appellants do not now question the legality of their arrest. What they object to is the introduction of the bloodstained pair of shorts allegedly recovered from the bag of Appellant Formento. They argue that the search was illegally done, making the obtainment of the | |||||
|
2002-09-24 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Verily, the defense has failed to convince us that the trial court's Decision should be disbelieved or modified, much less reversed.[39] First, incredible is the story of appellant that upon his arrival at Our Lady of Grace Church, men in civilian clothes blocked his way and effected the arrest while pointing their handguns at him.[40] He offered no evidence that they had been improperly or maliciously motivated.[41] Neither did he give any satisfactory explanation why the Drug Enforcement Unit agents would single out his car from among the many vehicles that passed 11th Avenue in Caloocan City on that particular day, just to frame him up and extort money from him.[42] The records show that there was no prior surveillance of appellant conducted prior to his arrest. For the purpose of showing that the agents had meant to extort a huge sum of money from him, he did not present any evidence showing that they had known him prior to the | |||||