Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. NOEL BARTOLOME Y BAJO

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 208015 2015-10-14	PEOPLE OF PHILIPINES v. RONWALDO LAFARAN Y ACLAN PEREZ, J.
It has oft been held that the presentation of an informant as witness is not regarded as indispensable to the success of a prosecution of a drug-dealing accused. As a rule, the informant is not presented in court for security reasons, in view of the need to protect the informant from the retaliation of the culprit arrested through his efforts. Thereby, the confidentiality of the informant's identity is protected in deference to his invaluable services to law enforcement. Only when the testimony of the informant is considered absolutely essential in obtaining the conviction of the culprit should the need to protect his security be disregarded.[25] In the present case, as the buy-bust operation was duly witnessed by SPO2 Aro and PO3 Pera, their testimonies can take the place of that of the poseur-buyer.
	GR No. 215731 2015-09-02	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO CARRERA Y IMBAT VILLARAMA, JR., J.
We agree with the CA that appellant may not be held guilty of illegal sale of a prohibited drug. In order to establish the crime of illegal sale of shabu, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the identity of the object and the consideration of the sale; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and of the payment for the thing.[28] It is thus imperative that proof of the transaction or sale be established together with the presentation of the corpus delicti in court.
	GR No. 209588 2015-02-18	PEOPLE v. ERIC ROSAURO Y BONGCAWIL PEREZ, J.
The RTC and the CA both found the arrest of accused-appellant to be the result of a legitimate entrapment procedure, and we find nothing in the records as to warrant a contrary finding. In People v. Bartolome,[17] we had the occasion to discuss the legitimacy of a "decoy solicitation," to wit:It is no defense to the perpetrator of a crime that facilities for its commission were purposely placed in his way, or that the criminal act was done at the "decoy solicitation" of persons seeking to expose the criminal, or that detectives feigning complicity in the act were present and apparently assisting its commission. Especially is this true in that class of cases where the office is one habitually committed, and the solicitation merely furnishes evidence of a course of conduct.
	GR No. 201100 2015-02-04	PEOPLE OF PHILIPINES v. MHODS USMAN Y GOGO PEREZ, J.
Lastly, as to accused-appellant's claim of frame-up, suffice it to say that in People v. Bartolome,[27] we held that the fact that frame-up and extortion could be easily concocted renders such defenses hard to believe. Thus, although drug-related violators have commonly tendered such defenses to fend off or refute valid prosecutions of their drug-related violations, the Court has required that such defenses, to be credited at all, must be established with clear and convincing evidence.
	GR No. 183700 2014-10-13	PEOPLE v. PABLITO ANDAYA Y REANO BERSAMIN, J.
We reiterate that a buy-bust operation is a valid and legitimate form of entrapment of the drug pusher.[11] In such operation, the poseur buyer transacts with the suspect by purchasing a quantity of the dangerous drug and paying the price agreed upon, and in turn the drug pusher turns over or delivers the dangerous drug subject of their agreement in exchange for the price or other consideration. Once the transaction is consummated, the drug pusher is arrested, and can be held to account under the criminal law. The justification that underlies the legitimacy of the buy-bust operation is that the suspect is arrested in flagranti delicto, that is, the suspect has just committed, or is in the act of committing, or is attempting to commit the offense in the presence of the arresting police officer or private person.[12] The arresting police officer or private person is favored in such instance with the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty.
	GR No. 176269 2013-11-13	PEOPLE v. KENNETH MONCEDA Y SY BRION, J.
In a charge of illegal sale of shabu, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, (b) the identity of the object and the consideration of the sale; and (c) the delivery of the thing sold and of the payment made.[26] What assumes primary importance is the proof clearly showing that an illegal transaction actually took place, and the presentation in court of what was sold as evidence of the corpus delicti.[27]