Lawyerly

GR No. 177324

2011-03-30

PEOPLE v. REYNALD DELA CRUZ Y LIBANTOCIA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

In drug cases, entrapment is a normal police technique to catch the culprit in flagrante delicto. On the other hand, denial and frame-up are the usual defenses set up by the accused. Affirmative statements are given greater weight than mere denials.[36]

GR No. 188900

2010-03-05

PEOPLE v. FERNANDO HABANA Y ORANTE

ABAD, J.

The non-presentation of the informant cannot prejudice the prosecution's theory of the case. His testimony would merely be corroborative since police officers Paras and Tayag who witnessed everything already testified. Besides, as a rule, it is rarely that the prosecutor would present the informant because of the need to hide his identity and preserve his invaluable service to the police.[22]

GR No. 171088

2009-10-02

PEOPLE v. LEONARD L. BERNARDINO

BRION, J.

The defenses of denial and frame-up are weak defenses that are viewed by the Court with disfavor because "they can easily be feigned and fabricated."[48] In People v. Uy,[49] the Court explicitly expounded on this view, as follows:We are not unaware that in some instances law enforcers resort to the practice of planting evidence to extract information or even to harass civilians. However, like alibi, frame-up is a defense that has been invariably viewed by the Court with disfavor as it can easily be concocted [and] hence commonly used as a standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. We realize the disastrous consequences on the enforcement of law and order, not to mention the well being of society, if the courts x x x accept in every instance this form of defense which can be so easily fabricated. x x x

GR No. 181492

2008-12-16

PEOPLE v. SAMUEL OBMIRANIS Y ORETA

TINGA, J.

It needs no elucidation that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty must be seen in the context of an existing rule of law or statute authorizing the performance of an act or duty or prescribing a procedure in the performance thereof. The presumption, in other words, obtains only where nothing in the records is suggestive of the fact that the law enforcers involved deviated from the standard conduct of official duty as provided for in the law. Otherwise, where the official act in question is irregular on its face, an adverse presumption arises as a matter of course.[48] There is indeed merit in the contention that where no ill motives to make false charges was successfully attributed to the members of the buy-bust team, the presumption prevails that said police operatives had regularly performed their duty, but the theory is correct only where there is no showing that the conduct of police duty was irregular. People v. Dulay[49] and People v. Ganenas[50] in fact both suggest that the presumption of regularity is disputed where there is deviation from the regular performance of duty. Suffice it to say at this point that the presumption of regularity in the conduct of police duty is merely just that a mere presumption disputable by contrary proof and which when challenged by the evidence cannot be regarded as binding truth.[51]

GR No. 175326

2007-11-28

PEOPLE v. EDGARDO SANTIAGO Y GATDULA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The testimonies of the police officers with respect to appellants' participation in the drug-related transaction, which was the subject of the buy-bust operation, carried with it the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions. Courts accord credence and full faith to the testimonies of police authorities, as they are presumed to be performing their duties regularly, absent any convincing proof to the contrary.[64]

GR NO. 172975

2007-08-08

PEOPLE v. ROBERTO T. GARCIA

CARPIO MORALES, J.

Appellant's questioning of the lack of prior surveillance by the police officers before the conduct of the buy-bust operation to thus render the operation invalid fails. There is no requirement that a surveillance should first be conducted before a buy-bust operation, especially where the operatives are accompanied to the scene by their informant,[43] or where the police officers have reasonable ground to believe that the informer and the information given are reliable and that a crime is indeed being perpetrated.[44] The buy-bust operation is formed by the police officers precisely to test the veracity of the tip and to apprehend the perpetrator, if he in fact commits the offense, before he further endangers society.

GR No. 133006

2004-06-09

PEOPLE v. JOHN ISNANI Y ILINGAN

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

We find appellant's defenses of denial and alibi unavailing. It bears emphasis that appellant was caught in flagrante delicto in a legitimate entrapment operation conducted by the police. Hence, his identity as the person who delivered the regulated drug to accused Isnani for sale and distribution, cannot be doubted anymore. Such positive identification prevails over his weak defenses of denial and alibi.[12]

GR No. 144157

2003-06-10

PEOPLE v. LOWELL SALUDES Y DE GUZMAN

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

In addition, we sentence appellant to pay the amount of P1,000,000.00 as fine, pursuant to the above-cited Section 4 of R.A. 6425, as amended, and current jurisprudence.[30] An appeal in a criminal case throws the whole case wide open for review and the reviewing tribunal can correct errors, though unassigned in the appealed judgment, or even reverse the trial court's decision on the basis of grounds other than those that the parties raised as errors.[31]

GR Nos. 149872-73

2003-03-14

PEOPLE v. ROSDIA HAJILI Y SAKILAN

PANGANIBAN, J.

Q You said you booked them in[. Was] the arrest of the two suspects registered in your Office? A Yes. It was registered."[18] The foregoing testimony was substantially corroborated by PO3 Renato Dela Peña[19] and PO3 Alfredo Trumata.[20] The clear, straightforward and consistent testimonies of the police officers sufficiently support the trial court's conclusions. The allegation that Appellant Hajili knew the poseur-buyer to be a policeman is not a ground for inferring that she could not have sold the illegal drugs to him. Such sales to police officers do take place nowadays.[21]

GR No. 148919

2002-12-17

PEOPLE v. TERESA CORPUZ Y VARGAS

PANGANIBAN, J.

"fn">[49] At the very least, whatever inconsistencies there were in PO3 Colaler's testimony were minor and did not detract from the veracity and the weight of the prosecution evidence.[50] What is material and indispensable is that the sale of the illegal drugs was adequately established;[51] the prosecution eyewitness clearly identified both appellants as the offenders,[52] and the substance itself was presented

GR No. 138990

2002-01-30

PEOPLE v. SAMMY ZACARIAS

VITUG, J.

It is the peculiar province of the trial court to determine the credibility of a witness because of its superior advantage in observing the conduct and demeanor of the witness while testifying.[4] Absent any showing of a fact or circumstance of weight and influence which would appear to have been overlooked and, if considered, could affect the outcome of the case, the factual findings and assessment on the credibility of a witness made by the trial court remain binding on an appellate tribunal.[5]

	GR No. 177324 2011-03-30	PEOPLE v. REYNALD DELA CRUZ Y LIBANTOCIA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In drug cases, entrapment is a normal police technique to catch the culprit in flagrante delicto. On the other hand, denial and frame-up are the usual defenses set up by the accused. Affirmative statements are given greater weight than mere denials.[36]
	GR No. 188900 2010-03-05	PEOPLE v. FERNANDO HABANA Y ORANTE ABAD, J.
The non-presentation of the informant cannot prejudice the prosecution's theory of the case. His testimony would merely be corroborative since police officers Paras and Tayag who witnessed everything already testified. Besides, as a rule, it is rarely that the prosecutor would present the informant because of the need to hide his identity and preserve his invaluable service to the police.[22]
	GR No. 171088 2009-10-02	PEOPLE v. LEONARD L. BERNARDINO BRION, J.
The defenses of denial and frame-up are weak defenses that are viewed by the Court with disfavor because "they can easily be feigned and fabricated."[48] In People v. Uy,[49] the Court explicitly expounded on this view, as follows:We are not unaware that in some instances law enforcers resort to the practice of planting evidence to extract information or even to harass civilians. However, like alibi, frame-up is a defense that has been invariably viewed by the Court with disfavor as it can easily be concocted [and] hence commonly used as a standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. We realize the disastrous consequences on the enforcement of law and order, not to mention the well being of society, if the courts x x x accept in every instance this form of defense which can be so easily fabricated. x x x
	GR No. 181492 2008-12-16	PEOPLE v. SAMUEL OBMIRANIS Y ORETA TINGA, J.
It needs no elucidation that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty must be seen in the context of an existing rule of law or statute authorizing the performance of an act or duty or prescribing a procedure in the performance thereof. The presumption, in other words, obtains only where nothing in the records is suggestive of the fact that the law enforcers involved deviated from the standard conduct of official duty as provided for in the law. Otherwise, where the official act in question is irregular on its face, an adverse presumption arises as a matter of course.[48] There is indeed merit in the contention that where no ill motives to make false charges was successfully attributed to the members of the buy-bust team, the presumption prevails that said police operatives had regularly performed their duty, but the theory is correct only where there is no showing that the conduct of police duty was irregular. People v. Dulay[49] and People v. Ganenas[50] in fact both suggest that the presumption of regularity is disputed where there is deviation from the regular performance of duty. Suffice it to say at this point that the presumption of regularity in the conduct of police duty is merely just that a mere presumption disputable by contrary proof and which when challenged by the evidence cannot be regarded as binding truth.[51]
	GR No. 175326 2007-11-28	PEOPLE v. EDGARDO SANTIAGO Y GATDULA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The testimonies of the police officers with respect to appellants' participation in the drug-related transaction, which was the subject of the buy-bust operation, carried with it the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions. Courts accord credence and full faith to the testimonies of police authorities, as they are presumed to be performing their duties regularly, absent any convincing proof to the contrary.[64]
	GR NO. 172975 2007-08-08	PEOPLE v. ROBERTO T. GARCIA CARPIO MORALES, J.
Appellant's questioning of the lack of prior surveillance by the police officers before the conduct of the buy-bust operation to thus render the operation invalid fails. There is no requirement that a surveillance should first be conducted before a buy-bust operation, especially where the operatives are accompanied to the scene by their informant,[43] or where the police officers have reasonable ground to believe that the informer and the information given are reliable and that a crime is indeed being perpetrated.[44] The buy-bust operation is formed by the police officers precisely to test the veracity of the tip and to apprehend the perpetrator, if he in fact commits the offense, before he further endangers society.
	GR No. 133006 2004-06-09	PEOPLE v. JOHN ISNANI Y ILINGAN SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
We find appellant's defenses of denial and alibi unavailing. It bears emphasis that appellant was caught in flagrante delicto in a legitimate entrapment operation conducted by the police. Hence, his identity as the person who delivered the regulated drug to accused Isnani for sale and distribution, cannot be doubted anymore. Such positive identification prevails over his weak defenses of denial and alibi.[12]
	GR No. 144157 2003-06-10	PEOPLE v. LOWELL SALUDES Y DE GUZMAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In addition, we sentence appellant to pay the amount of P1,000,000.00 as fine, pursuant to the above-cited Section 4 of R.A. 6425, as amended, and current jurisprudence.[30] An appeal in a criminal case throws the whole case wide open for review and the reviewing tribunal can correct errors, though unassigned in the appealed judgment, or even reverse the trial court's decision on the basis of grounds other than those that the parties raised as errors.[31]
	GR Nos. 149872-73 2003-03-14	PEOPLE v. ROSDIA HAJILI Y SAKILAN PANGANIBAN, J.
Q You said you booked them in[. Was] the arrest of the two suspects registered in your Office? A Yes. It was registered."[18] The foregoing testimony was substantially corroborated by PO3 Renato Dela Peña[19] and PO3 Alfredo Trumata.[20] The clear, straightforward and consistent testimonies of the police officers sufficiently support the trial court's conclusions. The allegation that Appellant Hajili knew the poseur-buyer to be a policeman is not a ground for inferring that she could not have sold the illegal drugs to him. Such sales to police officers do take place nowadays.[21]
	GR No. 148919 2002-12-17	PEOPLE v. TERESA CORPUZ Y VARGAS PANGANIBAN, J.
"fn">[49] At the very least, whatever inconsistencies there were in PO3 Colaler's testimony were minor and did not detract from the veracity and the weight of the prosecution evidence.[50] What is material and indispensable is that the sale of the illegal drugs was adequately established;[51] the prosecution eyewitness clearly identified both appellants as the offenders,[52] and the substance itself was presented
	GR No. 138990 2002-01-30	PEOPLE v. SAMMY ZACARIAS VITUG, J.
It is the peculiar province of the trial court to determine the credibility of a witness because of its superior advantage in observing the conduct and demeanor of the witness while testifying.[4] Absent any showing of a fact or circumstance of weight and influence which would appear to have been overlooked and, if considered, could affect the outcome of the case, the factual findings and assessment on the credibility of a witness made by the trial court remain binding on an appellate tribunal.[5]

PEOPLE v. EVANGELINE GANENAS Y URBANO