Lawyerly

GR No. 203984

2014-06-18

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Hence, as Calantiao failed to show clear and convincing evidence that the apprehending officers were stirred by illicit motive or failed to properly perform their duties, their testimonies deserve full faith and credit. [25]

GR No. 189327

2012-02-29

PEOPLE v. EMILY MENDOZA Y SARTIN

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

It is also worthy to note the fact that Mendoza has not ascribed any improper motive on the part of the police officers as to why they would choose to implicate her in a very serious crime. Mendoza herself admitted that she had not seen any of the police officers who testified against her prior to the trial. As the RTC pronounced, she has not shown that Ching and Mangilit were motivated by reasons other than their duty to curb the sale of prohibited drugs.[36] Thus, it is only right that until Mendoza can show clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust operation team were motivated illicitly, or had failed to properly perform their duties, their testimonies deserve full faith and credit.[37]

GR No. 186131

2011-12-14

PEOPLE v. BENJAMIN AMANSEC Y DOÑA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Equally important is the fact that Amansec has not ascribed any improper motive on the part of the police officers as to why they would hand-pick him, and falsely incriminate him in such a serious crime. No evidence has been offered to show that Mabutol and Pascua, were motivated by reasons other than their duty to curb the sale of prohibited drugs.[54] Amansec himself admitted that he only came to know his arresting officers after his arrest. He also testified that he knew of no grudge that they might have against him. Hence, until Amansec can show clear and convincing evidence that the members of the entrapment operation team were stirred by illicit motive or failed to properly perform their duties, their testimonies deserve full faith and credit. [55]

GR No. 173485

2011-11-23

PEOPLE v. NENITA LEGASPI Y LUCAS

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment which in recent years has been accepted as a valid means of arresting violators of the Dangerous Drugs Law. It is commonly employed by police officers as an effective way of apprehending law offenders in the act of committing a crime. 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. Its opposite is instigation or inducement, wherein the police or its agent lures the accused into committing the offense in order to prosecute him. Instigation is deemed contrary to public policy and considered an absolutory cause. x x x.[26]

GR No. 184957

2009-10-27

PEOPLE v. GRACE VENTURA Y NATIVIDAD

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Mere denial and allegations of frame-up have been invariably viewed by the courts with disfavor, for these defenses are easily concocted.[29] These are common and standard defenses in prosecutions involving violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law. In a long line of cases, we have ruled 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.[30] 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 an improper motive.[31] Otherwise, the police officers' testimonies on the operation deserve full faith and credit.[32]

GR No. 187503

2009-09-11

PEOPLE v. TECSON LIM Y CHUA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Primarily, a buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment whereby ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan. 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 on the operation deserve full faith and credit. When the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation have no motive to falsely testify against the accused, the courts shall uphold the presumption that they have performed their duties regularly.[39] The courts, nonetheless, are advised to take caution in applying the presumption of regularity. It should not by itself prevail over the presumption of innocence and the constitutionally protected rights of the individual.[40] Thus, this Court discussed in People v. Doria[41] the "objective" test in buy-bust operations to determine the credibility of the testimonies of the police officers involved in the operation: We therefore stress that the "objective" test in buy-bust operations demands that the details of the purported transaction must be clearly and adequately shown. This must start from the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the consideration until the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of the sale. The manner by which the initial contact was made, whether or not through an informant, the offer to purchase the drug, the payment of the "buy-bust" money, and the delivery of the illegal drug, whether to the informant alone or the police officer, must be the subject of strict scrutiny by courts to insure that law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit an offense. Criminals must be caught but not at all cost. At the same time, however, examining the conduct of the police should not disable courts into ignoring the accused's predisposition to commit the crime. If there is overwhelming evidence of habitual delinquency, recidivism or plain criminal proclivity, then this must also be considered. Courts should look at all factors to determine the predisposition of an accused to commit an offense in so far as they are relevant to determine the validity of the defense of inducement.

GR No. 182347

2008-10-17

PEOPLE v. EMILIO RIVERA Y CABLANG

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Accused-appellant was arrested in flagrante delicto in a buy-bust operation which is a form of entrapment which in recent years has been accepted to be a valid and effective mode of apprehending drug pushers. In a buy-bust operation, ways and means are employed for the purpose of trapping and capturing lawbreakers in the execution of their plan.[26] The idea to commit a crime originates from the offender, without anybody inducing or prodding him to commit the offense.[27] If carried out with due regard for constitutional and legal safeguards, a buy-bust operation deserves judicial sanction.

GR No. 181747

2008-09-26

PEOPLE v. NARCISO AGULAY Y LOPEZ

CHICO-NAZARIO, 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.[16] If carried out with due regard for constitutional and legal safeguards, a buy-bust operation deserves judicial sanction.[17]

GR NO. 169141

2006-12-06

PEOPLE v. ROMEO DEL MUNDO Y STA. MARIA

TINGA, J.

x x x x[37] A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment whereby ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan.[38] The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummates the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and the accused.[39] 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 testimony on the operation deserves full faith and credit.[40]

GR NO. 168694

2006-11-27

PEOPLE v. SAIDAMIN MACABALANG Y MALAMAMA

TINGA, J.

For the successful prosecution of the illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence.[21] A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment whereby ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan.[22] The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction.[23]

GR NO. 172116

2006-10-30

PEOPLE v. ROGER VILLANUEVA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

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 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. Verily, here, from the evidence adduced, We find no reason to depart from the general rule. We are one with the court a quo's conclusion that the prosecution was able to establish that a buy-bust operation actually took place starting from the time the team composed of nine (9) members proceeded to the target area at 9:00 p.m. for the initial negotiation until the perfection of the sale at 9:30 p.m. the same night.[17] Moreover, when the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation have no motive to falsely testify against the accused, the courts shall uphold the presumption that they have performed their duties regularly;[18] and as held in People v. Pacis,[19] bare denials by the accused cannot overcome this presumption.

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. 148077

2004-02-16

PEOPLE v. WILLY YANG

QUISUMBING, J.

Appellant's shift in the theory of his defense from alibi and outright denial to instigation or inducement does not aid his cause. This theory of instigation or inducement deserves scant consideration. Instigation or inducement is committed when law enforcers lure an accused into committing the offense in order to prosecute him.[41] It is contrary to public policy and considered an absolutory cause.[42] To substantiate such defense, however, the evidence must be clear and convincing. No such proof, however, was presented by the defense.

GR No. 143671

2003-02-14

PEOPLE v. AGNES PADASIN Y CHAKITON

AZCUNA, J.

In a long line of cases, we have ruled 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.[23]

	GR No. 203984 2014-06-18	PEOPLE v. MEDARIO CALANTIAO Y DIMALANTA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Hence, as Calantiao failed to show clear and convincing evidence that the apprehending officers were stirred by illicit motive or failed to properly perform their duties, their testimonies deserve full faith and credit. [25]
	GR No. 189327 2012-02-29	PEOPLE v. EMILY MENDOZA Y SARTIN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
It is also worthy to note the fact that Mendoza has not ascribed any improper motive on the part of the police officers as to why they would choose to implicate her in a very serious crime. Mendoza herself admitted that she had not seen any of the police officers who testified against her prior to the trial. As the RTC pronounced, she has not shown that Ching and Mangilit were motivated by reasons other than their duty to curb the sale of prohibited drugs.[36] Thus, it is only right that until Mendoza can show clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust operation team were motivated illicitly, or had failed to properly perform their duties, their testimonies deserve full faith and credit.[37]
	GR No. 186131 2011-12-14	PEOPLE v. BENJAMIN AMANSEC Y DOÑA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Equally important is the fact that Amansec has not ascribed any improper motive on the part of the police officers as to why they would hand-pick him, and falsely incriminate him in such a serious crime. No evidence has been offered to show that Mabutol and Pascua, were motivated by reasons other than their duty to curb the sale of prohibited drugs.[54] Amansec himself admitted that he only came to know his arresting officers after his arrest. He also testified that he knew of no grudge that they might have against him. Hence, until Amansec can show clear and convincing evidence that the members of the entrapment operation team were stirred by illicit motive or failed to properly perform their duties, their testimonies deserve full faith and credit. [55]
	GR No. 173485 2011-11-23	PEOPLE v. NENITA LEGASPI Y LUCAS LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment which in recent years has been accepted as a valid means of arresting violators of the Dangerous Drugs Law. It is commonly employed by police officers as an effective way of apprehending law offenders in the act of committing a crime. 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. Its opposite is instigation or inducement, wherein the police or its agent lures the accused into committing the offense in order to prosecute him. Instigation is deemed contrary to public policy and considered an absolutory cause. x x x.[26]
	GR No. 184957 2009-10-27	PEOPLE v. GRACE VENTURA Y NATIVIDAD CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Mere denial and allegations of frame-up have been invariably viewed by the courts with disfavor, for these defenses are easily concocted.[29] These are common and standard defenses in prosecutions involving violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law. In a long line of cases, we have ruled 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.[30] 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 an improper motive.[31] Otherwise, the police officers' testimonies on the operation deserve full faith and credit.[32]
	GR No. 187503 2009-09-11	PEOPLE v. TECSON LIM Y CHUA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Primarily, a buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment whereby ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan. 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 on the operation deserve full faith and credit. When the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation have no motive to falsely testify against the accused, the courts shall uphold the presumption that they have performed their duties regularly.[39] The courts, nonetheless, are advised to take caution in applying the presumption of regularity. It should not by itself prevail over the presumption of innocence and the constitutionally protected rights of the individual.[40] Thus, this Court discussed in People v. Doria[41] the "objective" test in buy-bust operations to determine the credibility of the testimonies of the police officers involved in the operation: We therefore stress that the "objective" test in buy-bust operations demands that the details of the purported transaction must be clearly and adequately shown. This must start from the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the consideration until the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of the sale. The manner by which the initial contact was made, whether or not through an informant, the offer to purchase the drug, the payment of the "buy-bust" money, and the delivery of the illegal drug, whether to the informant alone or the police officer, must be the subject of strict scrutiny by courts to insure that law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit an offense. Criminals must be caught but not at all cost. At the same time, however, examining the conduct of the police should not disable courts into ignoring the accused's predisposition to commit the crime. If there is overwhelming evidence of habitual delinquency, recidivism or plain criminal proclivity, then this must also be considered. Courts should look at all factors to determine the predisposition of an accused to commit an offense in so far as they are relevant to determine the validity of the defense of inducement.
	GR No. 182347 2008-10-17	PEOPLE v. EMILIO RIVERA Y CABLANG CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Accused-appellant was arrested in flagrante delicto in a buy-bust operation which is a form of entrapment which in recent years has been accepted to be a valid and effective mode of apprehending drug pushers. In a buy-bust operation, ways and means are employed for the purpose of trapping and capturing lawbreakers in the execution of their plan.[26] The idea to commit a crime originates from the offender, without anybody inducing or prodding him to commit the offense.[27] If carried out with due regard for constitutional and legal safeguards, a buy-bust operation deserves judicial sanction.
	GR No. 181747 2008-09-26	PEOPLE v. NARCISO AGULAY Y LOPEZ CHICO-NAZARIO, 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.[16] If carried out with due regard for constitutional and legal safeguards, a buy-bust operation deserves judicial sanction.[17]
	GR NO. 169141 2006-12-06	PEOPLE v. ROMEO DEL MUNDO Y STA. MARIA TINGA, J.
x x x x[37] A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment whereby ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan.[38] The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummates the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and the accused.[39] 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 testimony on the operation deserves full faith and credit.[40]
	GR NO. 168694 2006-11-27	PEOPLE v. SAIDAMIN MACABALANG Y MALAMAMA TINGA, J.
For the successful prosecution of the illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence.[21] A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment whereby ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan.[22] The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction.[23]
	GR NO. 172116 2006-10-30	PEOPLE v. ROGER VILLANUEVA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
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 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. Verily, here, from the evidence adduced, We find no reason to depart from the general rule. We are one with the court a quo's conclusion that the prosecution was able to establish that a buy-bust operation actually took place starting from the time the team composed of nine (9) members proceeded to the target area at 9:00 p.m. for the initial negotiation until the perfection of the sale at 9:30 p.m. the same night.[17] Moreover, when the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation have no motive to falsely testify against the accused, the courts shall uphold the presumption that they have performed their duties regularly;[18] and as held in People v. Pacis,[19] bare denials by the accused cannot overcome this presumption.
	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. 148077 2004-02-16	PEOPLE v. WILLY YANG QUISUMBING, J.
Appellant's shift in the theory of his defense from alibi and outright denial to instigation or inducement does not aid his cause. This theory of instigation or inducement deserves scant consideration. Instigation or inducement is committed when law enforcers lure an accused into committing the offense in order to prosecute him.[41] It is contrary to public policy and considered an absolutory cause.[42] To substantiate such defense, however, the evidence must be clear and convincing. No such proof, however, was presented by the defense.
	GR No. 143671 2003-02-14	PEOPLE v. AGNES PADASIN Y CHAKITON AZCUNA, J.
In a long line of cases, we have ruled 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.[23]

PEOPLE v. SEGUNDINO VALENCIA Y BLANCA