Lawyerly

GR No. 201111

2014-08-06

PEREZ, J.

Appellant's defense, which is predicated on bare denial, deserves scant consideration in light of the positive testimonies of the police officers. The defense of frame-up or denial in drug cases requires strong and convincing evidence because of the presumption that the law enforcement agencies acted in the regular performance of their official duties.[21] Bare denial of appellant cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of the three police officers.[22] Moreover, there is no evidence of any improper motive on the part of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation to falsely testify against appellant.

GR No. 199874

2014-07-23

PEOPLE v. PETER FANG Y GAMBOA

PEREZ, J.

Appellant's defense, which is predicated on a bare denial, deserves scant consideration in light of the positive testimonies of the police officers. The defense of frame-up or denial in drug cases requires strong and convincing evidence because of the presumption that the law enforcement agencies acted in the regular performance of their official duties.[19] Bare denials of appellant cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of the three police officers.[20] Moreover, there is no evidence of any improper motive on the part of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation to falsely testify against appellant.

GR No. 192913

2013-06-13

PEOPLE v. JOEL REBOTAZO Y ALEJANDRIA

SERENO, C.J.

At the outset, buy-bust operations are legally sanctioned procedures for apprehending drug peddlers and distributors. These operations are often utilized by law enforcers for the purpose of trapping and capturing lawbreakers in the execution of their nefarious activities.[27] A buy-bust operation is one form of entrapment employed by peace officers as an effective way of apprehending a criminal in the act of committing an offense,[28] and must be undertaken with due regard for constitutional and legal safeguards.[29]

GR No. 186227

2011-07-20

PEOPLE v. ALLEN UDTOJAN MANTALABA

PERALTA, J.

The above only confirms that the buy-bust operation really occurred. Once again, this Court stresses that a buy-bust operation is a legally effective and proven procedure, sanctioned by law, for apprehending drug peddlers and distributors. [11] It is often utilized by law enforcers for the purpose of trapping and capturing lawbreakers in the execution of their nefarious activities. [12] In People v. Roa, [13] this Court had the opportunity to expound on the nature and importance of a buy-bust operation, ruling that: In the first place, coordination with the PDEA is not an indispensable requirement before police authorities may carry out a buy-bust operation. While it is true that Section 86 [14] of Republic Act No. 9165 requires the National Bureau of Investigation, PNP and the Bureau of Customs to maintain "close coordination with the PDEA on all drug-related matters," the provision does not, by so saying, make PDEA's participation a condition sine qua non for every buy-bust operation. After all, a buy-bust is just a form of an in flagrante arrest sanctioned by Section 5, Rule 113 [15] of the Rules of the Court, which police authorities may rightfully resort to in apprehending violators of Republic Act No. 9165 in support of the PDEA. [16] A buy-bust operation is not invalidated by mere non-coordination with the PDEA.

GR No. 187047

2011-06-15

PEOPLE v. MANUEL CRUZ Y CRUZ

PEREZ, J.

Denial or frame up is a standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law. As such, it has been viewed by the court with disfavor for it can just as easily be concocted. [39] It should not accord a redoubtable sanctuary to a person accused of drug dealing unless the evidence of such frame up is clear and convincing. [40] Without proof of any intent on the part of the police officers to falsely impute appellant in the commission of a crime, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and the principle that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect, deserve to prevail over the bare denials and self-serving claims of appellant that he had been framed up. [41] Neither can appellant's claim of alleged extortion by the police operatives be entertained. Absent any proof, appellant's assertion of extortion allegedly committed by the police officers could not be successfully interposed. It remains one of those standard, worn-out, and impotent excuses of malefactors prosecuted for drug offenses. What appellant could have done was to prove his allegation and not just casually air it. [42]

GR No. 171088

2009-10-02

PEOPLE v. LEONARD L. BERNARDINO

BRION, J.

In a successful prosecution for illegal sale of shabu, the concurrence of the following elements must be present: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[55] What is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti or the very drugs the accused sold.[56]

GR No. 186138

2009-09-11

PEOPLE v. LORETO DARIA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Once again, this Court stresses that a buy-bust operation is a legally effective and proven procedure, sanctioned by law, for apprehending drug peddlers and distributors.[32] It is often utilized by law enforcers for the purpose of trapping and capturing lawbreakers in the execution of their nefarious activities.[33] This Court, of course, is not unaware that in some instances, law enforcers resort to the practice of planting evidence to extract information or even to harass civilians. But the defense of frame-up in drug cases requires strong and convincing evidence because of the presumption that the law enforcement agencies acted in the regular performance of their official duties. Moreover, 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 prosecutions for violations of the drugs law.

GR No. 177237

2008-10-17

WILLIAM CHING v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Once again this Court stresses that a buy-bust operation is a legally effective and proven procedure, sanctioned by law at that, for apprehending drug peddlers and distributors.[30] It is often utilized by law enforcers for the purpose of trapping and capturing lawbreakers in the execution of their nefarious activities.[31] This Court, of course, is not unaware that in some instances law enforcers resort to the practice of planting evidence to extract information or even to harass civilians. But the defense of frame-up in drug cases requires strong and convincing evidence because of the presumption that the law enforcement agencies acted in the regular performance of their official duties. Moreover, 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 prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.

GR No. 171310

2008-07-09

PEOPLE v. SANNY CABACABA Y GAYOSO

QUISUMBING, J.

Again we cannot agree with the appellant. Important in a prosecution for the illegal sale of prohibited drugs is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place and the presentation in court of the corpus delicti,[23] which has two elements: (1) proof of the occurrence of a certain event and (2) a person's criminal responsibility for the act.[24] Here, the prosecution has adequately shown that an illegal sale of drugs took place between the police and the appellant in a valid entrapment scheme. The prosecution actually presented during the trial of the case, the illegal substance and the payment seized from the appellant's possession.

GR NO. 172975

2007-08-08

PEOPLE v. ROBERTO T. GARCIA

CARPIO MORALES, J.

That the informant was not presented by the prosecution does not prejudice the State's case as all the elements of illegal sale and possession of shabu by appellant were satisfactorily proved by testimonial, documentary and object evidence. At best, the testimony of the informant would only have been corroborative of the testimonies of PO2 Barrameda and PO2 Igno. It is not indispensable. People v. Uy[39] explains:The failure to present the informer did not diminish the integrity of the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution. Informers are almost always never presented in court because of the need to preserve their invaluable service to the police. Their testimony or identity may be dispensed with since his or her narration would be merely corroborative, as in this case, when the poseur-buyer himself testified on the sale of the illegal drug. (Underscoring supplied)

GR NO. 172975

2007-08-08

PEOPLE v. ROBERTO T. GARCIA

CARPIO MORALES, J.

Besides, the defense of denial or frame-up, like alibi, is 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.[42]

GR NO. 170359

2007-07-27

PEOPLE v. PHILIP DILAO Y CASTRO

GARCIA, J.

It cannot be over-emphasized that a buy-bust operation is a legally effective and proven procedure, sanctioned by law at that, for apprehending drug peddlers and distributors. It is often utilized by law enforcers for the purpose of trapping and capturing lawbreakers in the execution of their nefarious activities.[18] Credence of the buy-bust operators cannot be undermined by the mere fact that law enforcers are perceived to resort to the practice of planting evidence to gain favor from their superiors. In the absence of proof of motive to falsely impute a serious crime against an accused, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, as well as the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, shall prevail over appellant's often self-serving and uncorroborated claim of having been a victim of a frame-up.

GR NO. 173795

2007-04-03

PEOPLE v. LOIDA R. SORIANO

TINGA, J.

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 prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.[25] The defense of frame-up or denial in drug cases requires strong and convincing evidence because of the presumption that the law enforcement agencies acted in the regular performance of their official duties.[26] Bare denials of appellants cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of the three police officers.[27] Moreover, there is no evidence of any improper motive on the part of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation to falsely testify against appellants.

GR NO. 171019

2007-02-23

PEOPLE v. RAFAEL STA. MARIA Y INDON

GARCIA, J.

The law excuses non-compliance under justifiable grounds. However, whatever justifiable grounds may excuse the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation in this case from complying with Section 21 will remain unknown, because appellant did not question during trial the safekeeping of the items seized from him. Indeed, the police officers' alleged violations of Sections 21 and 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 were not raised before the trial court but were instead raised for the first time on appeal. In no instance did appellant least intimate at the trial court that there were lapses in the safekeeping of seized items that affected their integrity and evidentiary value. Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of objection. Without such objection he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal.[13]

GR NO. 143705

2007-02-23

RUBY DIMACUHA Y EBREO v. PEOPLE

GARCIA, J.

It is settled that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence should be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses especially when they are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there be evidence to the contrary. Moreover, in the absence of proof of motive to falsely impute such a serious crime against the petitioner, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, as well as the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, shall prevail over petitioner's self-serving and uncorroborated claim of having been framed.[6]

GR No. 151314

2004-06-03

PEOPLE v. MARIAM BANDANG Y SALAMAT

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

Appellant Abubakar now argues that the Initial Laboratory Report and the Chemistry Report No. D-1585-00 are inadmissible for being hearsay because Omero, the PNP forensic chemist, did not testify. This is a non-sequitur conclusion. In People vs. Uy,[45] we ruled that a forensic chemist is a public officer and as such, his report carries the presumption of regularity in the performance of his function and duties. Corollarily, under Section 44 of Rule 130, Revised Rules of Court, entries in official records made in the performance of official duty are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. Omero's reports that the seven sachets of white crystalline substance were "positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride" or shabu are, therefore, conclusive in the absence of evidence proving the contrary, as in this case.

GR No. 143793

2004-02-17

PEOPLE v. LI YIN CHU

CARPIO, J.

Appellant also argues that the non-presentation of the informer is fatal to the prosecution's case. As a rule, the prosecution does not present informers in court because of the need to preserve their cover so they can continue their invaluable service to the police.[26] Before disclosure of the informer's identity may be allowed, the defense must request, before or during the trial, the identification or production of the confidential informer. In this case, while appellant's former counsel[27] asked Delos Santos to identify the confidential informer, he failed to show at the time of the request how the identity of the informer or his production was essential to their defense.[28] Moreover, an informer's testimony or identity may be dispensed with since his narration is merely corroborative if the poseur-buyer himself testifies on the sale of the illegal drug, as in this case.[29]

	GR No. 201111 2014-08-06	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO CERDON Y SANCHEZ PEREZ, J.
Appellant's defense, which is predicated on bare denial, deserves scant consideration in light of the positive testimonies of the police officers. The defense of frame-up or denial in drug cases requires strong and convincing evidence because of the presumption that the law enforcement agencies acted in the regular performance of their official duties.[21] Bare denial of appellant cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of the three police officers.[22] Moreover, there is no evidence of any improper motive on the part of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation to falsely testify against appellant.
	GR No. 199874 2014-07-23	PEOPLE v. PETER FANG Y GAMBOA PEREZ, J.
Appellant's defense, which is predicated on a bare denial, deserves scant consideration in light of the positive testimonies of the police officers. The defense of frame-up or denial in drug cases requires strong and convincing evidence because of the presumption that the law enforcement agencies acted in the regular performance of their official duties.[19] Bare denials of appellant cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of the three police officers.[20] Moreover, there is no evidence of any improper motive on the part of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation to falsely testify against appellant.
	GR No. 192913 2013-06-13	PEOPLE v. JOEL REBOTAZO Y ALEJANDRIA SERENO, C.J.
At the outset, buy-bust operations are legally sanctioned procedures for apprehending drug peddlers and distributors. These operations are often utilized by law enforcers for the purpose of trapping and capturing lawbreakers in the execution of their nefarious activities.[27] A buy-bust operation is one form of entrapment employed by peace officers as an effective way of apprehending a criminal in the act of committing an offense,[28] and must be undertaken with due regard for constitutional and legal safeguards.[29]
	GR No. 186227 2011-07-20	PEOPLE v. ALLEN UDTOJAN MANTALABA PERALTA, J.
The above only confirms that the buy-bust operation really occurred. Once again, this Court stresses that a buy-bust operation is a legally effective and proven procedure, sanctioned by law, for apprehending drug peddlers and distributors. [11] It is often utilized by law enforcers for the purpose of trapping and capturing lawbreakers in the execution of their nefarious activities. [12] In People v. Roa, [13] this Court had the opportunity to expound on the nature and importance of a buy-bust operation, ruling that: In the first place, coordination with the PDEA is not an indispensable requirement before police authorities may carry out a buy-bust operation. While it is true that Section 86 [14] of Republic Act No. 9165 requires the National Bureau of Investigation, PNP and the Bureau of Customs to maintain "close coordination with the PDEA on all drug-related matters," the provision does not, by so saying, make PDEA's participation a condition sine qua non for every buy-bust operation. After all, a buy-bust is just a form of an in flagrante arrest sanctioned by Section 5, Rule 113 [15] of the Rules of the Court, which police authorities may rightfully resort to in apprehending violators of Republic Act No. 9165 in support of the PDEA. [16] A buy-bust operation is not invalidated by mere non-coordination with the PDEA.
	GR No. 187047 2011-06-15	PEOPLE v. MANUEL CRUZ Y CRUZ PEREZ, J.
Denial or frame up is a standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law. As such, it has been viewed by the court with disfavor for it can just as easily be concocted. [39] It should not accord a redoubtable sanctuary to a person accused of drug dealing unless the evidence of such frame up is clear and convincing. [40] Without proof of any intent on the part of the police officers to falsely impute appellant in the commission of a crime, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and the principle that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect, deserve to prevail over the bare denials and self-serving claims of appellant that he had been framed up. [41] Neither can appellant's claim of alleged extortion by the police operatives be entertained. Absent any proof, appellant's assertion of extortion allegedly committed by the police officers could not be successfully interposed. It remains one of those standard, worn-out, and impotent excuses of malefactors prosecuted for drug offenses. What appellant could have done was to prove his allegation and not just casually air it. [42]
	GR No. 171088 2009-10-02	PEOPLE v. LEONARD L. BERNARDINO BRION, J.
In a successful prosecution for illegal sale of shabu, the concurrence of the following elements must be present: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[55] What is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti or the very drugs the accused sold.[56]
	GR No. 186138 2009-09-11	PEOPLE v. LORETO DARIA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Once again, this Court stresses that a buy-bust operation is a legally effective and proven procedure, sanctioned by law, for apprehending drug peddlers and distributors.[32] It is often utilized by law enforcers for the purpose of trapping and capturing lawbreakers in the execution of their nefarious activities.[33] This Court, of course, is not unaware that in some instances, law enforcers resort to the practice of planting evidence to extract information or even to harass civilians. But the defense of frame-up in drug cases requires strong and convincing evidence because of the presumption that the law enforcement agencies acted in the regular performance of their official duties. Moreover, 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 prosecutions for violations of the drugs law.
	GR No. 177237 2008-10-17	WILLIAM CHING v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Once again this Court stresses that a buy-bust operation is a legally effective and proven procedure, sanctioned by law at that, for apprehending drug peddlers and distributors.[30] It is often utilized by law enforcers for the purpose of trapping and capturing lawbreakers in the execution of their nefarious activities.[31] This Court, of course, is not unaware that in some instances law enforcers resort to the practice of planting evidence to extract information or even to harass civilians. But the defense of frame-up in drug cases requires strong and convincing evidence because of the presumption that the law enforcement agencies acted in the regular performance of their official duties. Moreover, 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 prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.
	GR No. 171310 2008-07-09	PEOPLE v. SANNY CABACABA Y GAYOSO QUISUMBING, J.
Again we cannot agree with the appellant. Important in a prosecution for the illegal sale of prohibited drugs is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place and the presentation in court of the corpus delicti,[23] which has two elements: (1) proof of the occurrence of a certain event and (2) a person's criminal responsibility for the act.[24] Here, the prosecution has adequately shown that an illegal sale of drugs took place between the police and the appellant in a valid entrapment scheme. The prosecution actually presented during the trial of the case, the illegal substance and the payment seized from the appellant's possession.
	GR NO. 172975 2007-08-08	PEOPLE v. ROBERTO T. GARCIA CARPIO MORALES, J.
That the informant was not presented by the prosecution does not prejudice the State's case as all the elements of illegal sale and possession of shabu by appellant were satisfactorily proved by testimonial, documentary and object evidence. At best, the testimony of the informant would only have been corroborative of the testimonies of PO2 Barrameda and PO2 Igno. It is not indispensable. People v. Uy[39] explains:The failure to present the informer did not diminish the integrity of the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution. Informers are almost always never presented in court because of the need to preserve their invaluable service to the police. Their testimony or identity may be dispensed with since his or her narration would be merely corroborative, as in this case, when the poseur-buyer himself testified on the sale of the illegal drug. (Underscoring supplied)
	GR NO. 172975 2007-08-08	PEOPLE v. ROBERTO T. GARCIA CARPIO MORALES, J.
Besides, the defense of denial or frame-up, like alibi, is 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.[42]
	GR NO. 170359 2007-07-27	PEOPLE v. PHILIP DILAO Y CASTRO GARCIA, J.
It cannot be over-emphasized that a buy-bust operation is a legally effective and proven procedure, sanctioned by law at that, for apprehending drug peddlers and distributors. It is often utilized by law enforcers for the purpose of trapping and capturing lawbreakers in the execution of their nefarious activities.[18] Credence of the buy-bust operators cannot be undermined by the mere fact that law enforcers are perceived to resort to the practice of planting evidence to gain favor from their superiors. In the absence of proof of motive to falsely impute a serious crime against an accused, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, as well as the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, shall prevail over appellant's often self-serving and uncorroborated claim of having been a victim of a frame-up.
	GR NO. 173795 2007-04-03	PEOPLE v. LOIDA R. SORIANO TINGA, J.
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 prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.[25] The defense of frame-up or denial in drug cases requires strong and convincing evidence because of the presumption that the law enforcement agencies acted in the regular performance of their official duties.[26] Bare denials of appellants cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of the three police officers.[27] Moreover, there is no evidence of any improper motive on the part of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation to falsely testify against appellants.
	GR NO. 171019 2007-02-23	PEOPLE v. RAFAEL STA. MARIA Y INDON GARCIA, J.
The law excuses non-compliance under justifiable grounds. However, whatever justifiable grounds may excuse the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation in this case from complying with Section 21 will remain unknown, because appellant did not question during trial the safekeeping of the items seized from him. Indeed, the police officers' alleged violations of Sections 21 and 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 were not raised before the trial court but were instead raised for the first time on appeal. In no instance did appellant least intimate at the trial court that there were lapses in the safekeeping of seized items that affected their integrity and evidentiary value. Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of objection. Without such objection he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal.[13]
	GR NO. 143705 2007-02-23	RUBY DIMACUHA Y EBREO v. PEOPLE GARCIA, J.
It is settled that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence should be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses especially when they are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there be evidence to the contrary. Moreover, in the absence of proof of motive to falsely impute such a serious crime against the petitioner, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, as well as the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, shall prevail over petitioner's self-serving and uncorroborated claim of having been framed.[6]
	GR No. 151314 2004-06-03	PEOPLE v. MARIAM BANDANG Y SALAMAT SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Appellant Abubakar now argues that the Initial Laboratory Report and the Chemistry Report No. D-1585-00 are inadmissible for being hearsay because Omero, the PNP forensic chemist, did not testify. This is a non-sequitur conclusion. In People vs. Uy,[45] we ruled that a forensic chemist is a public officer and as such, his report carries the presumption of regularity in the performance of his function and duties. Corollarily, under Section 44 of Rule 130, Revised Rules of Court, entries in official records made in the performance of official duty are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. Omero's reports that the seven sachets of white crystalline substance were "positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride" or shabu are, therefore, conclusive in the absence of evidence proving the contrary, as in this case.
	GR No. 143793 2004-02-17	PEOPLE v. LI YIN CHU CARPIO, J.
Appellant also argues that the non-presentation of the informer is fatal to the prosecution's case. As a rule, the prosecution does not present informers in court because of the need to preserve their cover so they can continue their invaluable service to the police.[26] Before disclosure of the informer's identity may be allowed, the defense must request, before or during the trial, the identification or production of the confidential informer. In this case, while appellant's former counsel[27] asked Delos Santos to identify the confidential informer, he failed to show at the time of the request how the identity of the informer or his production was essential to their defense.[28] Moreover, an informer's testimony or identity may be dispensed with since his narration is merely corroborative if the poseur-buyer himself testifies on the sale of the illegal drug, as in this case.[29]

PEOPLE v. RAMON CHUA UY