Lawyerly

GR No. 191532

2012-08-15

MENDOZA, J.

As against the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the defense of denial offered by Ambre must simply fail. Bare denials cannot prevail over positive identification made by the prosecution witnesses.[24] Besides, this Court has held in a catena of cases that the defense of denial or frame-up has been viewed with disfavor for it can just as easily be concocted and is a common and standard ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.[25]

GR No. 185721

2011-09-28

PEOPLE v. RICKY UNISA Y ISLAN

PEREZ, J.

Against the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, appellant's plain denial of the offenses charged, unsubstantiated by any credible and convincing evidence, must necessarily fail.[61] Other than the testimony of appellant's common-law wife, whose testimony was rendered suspect because of her relationship with appellant, no other witness not related to appellant was ever presented to corroborate his claim.[62] Further, both prosecution witnesses positively identified appellant in open court to be the same person they caught red-handed selling and possessing shabu. Appellant's bare denial, therefore, cannot prevail over such positive identification made by the prosecution witnesses.[63] In the same way, appellant's denial cannot overcome the presumption that the police officers in this case have performed their duties in a regular and proper manner.[64] Besides, this Court held in a catena of cases that the defense of denial or frame-up, like alibi, has been viewed with disfavor for it can just as easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.[65]

GR No. 186465

2011-06-01

PEOPLE v. LORIE VILLAHERMOSA Y LECO

PEREZ, J.

Essentially, in a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu in this case, the following elements must concur: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration of the sale; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[44] The commission of the offense of illegal sale of prohibited drugs requires merely the consummation of the selling transaction, which happens the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller.[45] Thus, what is material to a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is proof that the illicit transaction took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.[46] Such proof is present in this case.

GR No. 179717

2010-02-05

PEOPLE v. NIEVA ALBERTO Y DE NIEVA

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Likewise unavailing is the defense of the appellant that the police officers arrested her to extort P50,000.00 and that the case was filed after she refused to give said amount. This defense of frame-up is viewed with disfavor since, like alibi, it can easily be concocted and is a common ploy in most prosecutions for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Law.[12] In fact, aside from the bare assertions of the appellant that she was a victim of frame-up and extortion, there is no clear and convincing evidence to substantiate such claim. On the other hand, she admits that there was no existing rancor between her and the arresting officers,[13] and that there is no reason why the buy-bust team would single her out for the sole purpose extorting money from her.

GR No. 185381

2009-12-16

PEOPLE v. DANILO CRUZ Y CULALA

VELASCO JR., J.

The Court will not disturb the findings of the trial court in assessing the credibility of the witnesses, unless some facts or circumstances of weight and influence have been overlooked or the significance of which has been misinterpreted by the trial court.[17] This is because the trial judge has the unique opportunity to observe the witnesses and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude during direct and cross examinations.[18] After a careful review of the entire records of this case, we do not find any such oversight by the trial court.

GR No. 164580

2009-02-06

NORGIE CRUZ Y CASTRO v. PEOPLE

CARPIO, J.

Petitioner further points to certain inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. It should be emphasized that inconsistencies regarding prior surveillance and subsequent investigation relate to the credibility of witnesses. It involves a question of fact which cannot be raised and is not proper for consideration in the present petition for review. This Court will not disturb the findings of the trial court in assessing the credibility of the witnesses, unless some facts or circumstances of weight and influence have been overlooked or the significance of which has been misinterpreted by the trial court. This is because the trial judge has the unique opportunity to observe the witnesses and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude during direct and cross-examination.[20] After a careful review of the entire records of this case, we do not find any such oversight by the trial court.

GR No. 178876

2008-06-27

PEOPLE v. ALFREDO CONCEPCION Y CLEMENTE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The failure of the PDEA operatives to record the boodle money will not render the buy-bust operation illegal. The recording of marked money used in a buy-bust operation is not one of the elements for the prosecution of sale of illegal drugs. The recording or non-recording thereof in an official record will not necessarily lead to an acquittal as long as the sale of the prohibited drug is adequately proven.[43] In the case at bar, PO2 Sistemio, the poseur buyer and PO2 Arojado testified as to how the shabu subject of the case was seized from appellants. Settled is the rule that 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. Neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any money used in the buy-bust operation. [44] What is material to a 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 the corpus delicti as evidence.[45] The prosecution duly established both in this case.

GR NO. 175222

2007-07-27

PEOPLE v. RAMON QUIAOIT

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

In the case of People v. Mala,[27] we held that what is material is the proof that the transaction actually took place, coupled with the presentation before the court of the corpus delicti. It bears emphasizing that neither the law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any of the money used in a buy-bust operation, for the only elements necessary to consummate the crime is proof that the illicit transaction took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the illicit drug as evidence.[28] In the present case, appellant insists that the prosecution failed to properly identify the sachet of shabu sold by appellant to PO1 Baquiran because of the buy-bust team's failure to segregate the said sachet from those confiscated from him at Camp Makabulos.

GR NO. 152848

2006-07-12

TERESITA SUSON Y BANZON v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Such argument will not help petitioners get out of the predicament they are in. The recording of marked money used in a buy-bust operation is not one of the elements for the prosecution of sale of illegal drugs. The recording or non-recording thereof in an official record will not necessarily lead to an acquittal as long as the sale of the prohibited drug is adequately proven. In the case at bar, SPO2 Patiño, the poseur-buyer, testified on the circumstances regarding the sale of the shabu for which petitioners were charged and convicted. Settled is the rule that 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. Neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any money used in the buy-bust operation.[24] What is material to a 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 the corpus delicti as evidence.[25] In the instant case, both were sufficiently shown by the prosecution.

GR No. 148077

2004-02-16

PEOPLE v. WILLY YANG

QUISUMBING, J.

As a general rule, on questions of credibility of a witness, we must rely upon the assessment made by the trial court, for it had the unique advantage of having observed a witness' demeanor, conduct, and manner of testifying.[31] Unless it can be shown that the trial court overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied certain facts of weight and substance bearing on the elements of the offense, its factual findings are accorded respect and even finality.[32]

GR No. 148048

2004-01-15

PEOPLE v. RADZMA AHMAD Y ABDULLAH

AZCUNA, J.

This Court is not convinced. The defense of denial or frame-up, like alibi, has been viewed with disfavor for it can easily be concocted and is a common defense ploy in most prosecutions for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act.[20] Being factual in nature, the tenability of this defense depends largely on the trial court's assessment of the credibility of the testimonial evidence of the accused. True, in some instances, law enforcers resort to the practice of planting evidence to extract information or even to harass civilians. However, this Court also realizes the disastrous consequences on the enforcement of law and order, not to mention the well-being of society, if the courts, solely on the basis of policemen's allegedly rotten reputation, accept in every instance this form of defense which can be so easily fabricated. Hence, for such defense to prosper, the evidence must be clear and convincing.[21]

	GR No. 191532 2012-08-15	MARGARITA AMBRE Y CAYUNI v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
As against the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the defense of denial offered by Ambre must simply fail. Bare denials cannot prevail over positive identification made by the prosecution witnesses.[24] Besides, this Court has held in a catena of cases that the defense of denial or frame-up has been viewed with disfavor for it can just as easily be concocted and is a common and standard ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.[25]
	GR No. 185721 2011-09-28	PEOPLE v. RICKY UNISA Y ISLAN PEREZ, J.
Against the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, appellant's plain denial of the offenses charged, unsubstantiated by any credible and convincing evidence, must necessarily fail.[61] Other than the testimony of appellant's common-law wife, whose testimony was rendered suspect because of her relationship with appellant, no other witness not related to appellant was ever presented to corroborate his claim.[62] Further, both prosecution witnesses positively identified appellant in open court to be the same person they caught red-handed selling and possessing shabu. Appellant's bare denial, therefore, cannot prevail over such positive identification made by the prosecution witnesses.[63] In the same way, appellant's denial cannot overcome the presumption that the police officers in this case have performed their duties in a regular and proper manner.[64] Besides, this Court held in a catena of cases that the defense of denial or frame-up, like alibi, has been viewed with disfavor for it can just as easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.[65]
	GR No. 186465 2011-06-01	PEOPLE v. LORIE VILLAHERMOSA Y LECO PEREZ, J.
Essentially, in a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu in this case, the following elements must concur: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration of the sale; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[44] The commission of the offense of illegal sale of prohibited drugs requires merely the consummation of the selling transaction, which happens the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller.[45] Thus, what is material to a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is proof that the illicit transaction took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.[46] Such proof is present in this case.
	GR No. 179717 2010-02-05	PEOPLE v. NIEVA ALBERTO Y DE NIEVA DEL CASTILLO, J.
Likewise unavailing is the defense of the appellant that the police officers arrested her to extort P50,000.00 and that the case was filed after she refused to give said amount. This defense of frame-up is viewed with disfavor since, like alibi, it can easily be concocted and is a common ploy in most prosecutions for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Law.[12] In fact, aside from the bare assertions of the appellant that she was a victim of frame-up and extortion, there is no clear and convincing evidence to substantiate such claim. On the other hand, she admits that there was no existing rancor between her and the arresting officers,[13] and that there is no reason why the buy-bust team would single her out for the sole purpose extorting money from her.
	GR No. 185381 2009-12-16	PEOPLE v. DANILO CRUZ Y CULALA VELASCO JR., J.
The Court will not disturb the findings of the trial court in assessing the credibility of the witnesses, unless some facts or circumstances of weight and influence have been overlooked or the significance of which has been misinterpreted by the trial court.[17] This is because the trial judge has the unique opportunity to observe the witnesses and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude during direct and cross examinations.[18] After a careful review of the entire records of this case, we do not find any such oversight by the trial court.
	GR No. 164580 2009-02-06	NORGIE CRUZ Y CASTRO v. PEOPLE CARPIO, J.
Petitioner further points to certain inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. It should be emphasized that inconsistencies regarding prior surveillance and subsequent investigation relate to the credibility of witnesses. It involves a question of fact which cannot be raised and is not proper for consideration in the present petition for review. This Court will not disturb the findings of the trial court in assessing the credibility of the witnesses, unless some facts or circumstances of weight and influence have been overlooked or the significance of which has been misinterpreted by the trial court. This is because the trial judge has the unique opportunity to observe the witnesses and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude during direct and cross-examination.[20] After a careful review of the entire records of this case, we do not find any such oversight by the trial court.
	GR No. 178876 2008-06-27	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO CONCEPCION Y CLEMENTE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The failure of the PDEA operatives to record the boodle money will not render the buy-bust operation illegal. The recording of marked money used in a buy-bust operation is not one of the elements for the prosecution of sale of illegal drugs. The recording or non-recording thereof in an official record will not necessarily lead to an acquittal as long as the sale of the prohibited drug is adequately proven.[43] In the case at bar, PO2 Sistemio, the poseur buyer and PO2 Arojado testified as to how the shabu subject of the case was seized from appellants. Settled is the rule that 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. Neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any money used in the buy-bust operation. [44] What is material to a 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 the corpus delicti as evidence.[45] The prosecution duly established both in this case.
	GR NO. 175222 2007-07-27	PEOPLE v. RAMON QUIAOIT CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In the case of People v. Mala,[27] we held that what is material is the proof that the transaction actually took place, coupled with the presentation before the court of the corpus delicti. It bears emphasizing that neither the law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any of the money used in a buy-bust operation, for the only elements necessary to consummate the crime is proof that the illicit transaction took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the illicit drug as evidence.[28] In the present case, appellant insists that the prosecution failed to properly identify the sachet of shabu sold by appellant to PO1 Baquiran because of the buy-bust team's failure to segregate the said sachet from those confiscated from him at Camp Makabulos.
	GR NO. 152848 2006-07-12	TERESITA SUSON Y BANZON v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Such argument will not help petitioners get out of the predicament they are in. The recording of marked money used in a buy-bust operation is not one of the elements for the prosecution of sale of illegal drugs. The recording or non-recording thereof in an official record will not necessarily lead to an acquittal as long as the sale of the prohibited drug is adequately proven. In the case at bar, SPO2 Patiño, the poseur-buyer, testified on the circumstances regarding the sale of the shabu for which petitioners were charged and convicted. Settled is the rule that 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. Neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any money used in the buy-bust operation.[24] What is material to a 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 the corpus delicti as evidence.[25] In the instant case, both were sufficiently shown by the prosecution.
	GR No. 148077 2004-02-16	PEOPLE v. WILLY YANG QUISUMBING, J.
As a general rule, on questions of credibility of a witness, we must rely upon the assessment made by the trial court, for it had the unique advantage of having observed a witness' demeanor, conduct, and manner of testifying.[31] Unless it can be shown that the trial court overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied certain facts of weight and substance bearing on the elements of the offense, its factual findings are accorded respect and even finality.[32]
	GR No. 148048 2004-01-15	PEOPLE v. RADZMA AHMAD Y ABDULLAH AZCUNA, J.
This Court is not convinced. The defense of denial or frame-up, like alibi, has been viewed with disfavor for it can easily be concocted and is a common defense ploy in most prosecutions for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act.[20] Being factual in nature, the tenability of this defense depends largely on the trial court's assessment of the credibility of the testimonial evidence of the accused. True, in some instances, law enforcers resort to the practice of planting evidence to extract information or even to harass civilians. However, this Court also realizes the disastrous consequences on the enforcement of law and order, not to mention the well-being of society, if the courts, solely on the basis of policemen's allegedly rotten reputation, accept in every instance this form of defense which can be so easily fabricated. Hence, for such defense to prosper, the evidence must be clear and convincing.[21]

PEOPLE v. PHOEBE ASTUDILLO