Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. CHE CHUN TING

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 179718 2008-09-17	PEOPLE v. LOURDES V. LEGASPI CORONA, J.
Moreover, her averment that the search was not made in her presence has no basis. The RTC held, and the CA affirmed, that the prosecution witnesses (namely the police officers who conducted the search) were very straightforward and consistent in their testimonies that it was made in the presence of the appellant herself and the barangay tanod. Thus, it so bore all the earmarks of truth that it would be difficult not to give credence to it.[7] Furthermore, no improper motive could successfully be ascribed to the law enforcers for implicating appellant in the commission of the offense.[8]
	GR No. 143718 2004-05-19	PEOPLE v. HAIRATUL JUBAIL y KILIH alias “SHAIRA JUBAIL y AHARUL” and RUAINA NURUDDIN y MOHAMMAD alias “RUAI NURUDDIN y HARIN” CARPIO, J.
In the face of Chief Inspector Muksan's inconsistent testimony, the testimony of the informant is indispensable. More so in this case where the police engaged the informant's services for the first time in a buy-bust operation.[55] The prosecution did not present as witness the informant who apparently was the only eyewitness to the entire transaction. The testimony of a police informant in an illegal drug case is not essential to convict the accused since the testimony would be merely corroborative and cumulative.[56] However, where the informant is the only eyewitness to the illegal transaction, his testimony is essential and non-presentation of the informant is fatal to the prosecution's cause.[57] As held in People v. Zheng Bai Hui:[58]
	GR No. 133789 2001-08-23	PEOPLE v. EDUARDO CHUA Y PANGAN QUISUMBING, J.
Section 20, Article IV[61] of R.A. No. 6425, the Dangerous Drugs Act as amended by R.A. No. 7659 provides, in part, that the penalty in Section 15, Article III shall be applied if the dangerous drug involved is, in the case of shabu or methylamphetamine hydrochloride, 200 grams or more. The delivery or distribution of regulated drugs without proper authority is penalized under Section 15 of R.A. No. 7659 with reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00. The law prescribes two indivisible penalties, namely reclusion perpetua to death. Hence, conformably with Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code,[62] the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua is the proper penalty imposable since there were no mitigating nor aggravating circumstances attending appellants' violation of the law.[63]