This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2015-01-21 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Appellants also assail the legality of their detention for being formally charged in an Information on December 8, 1998 or five (5) days after their arrest on December 3, 1998, beyond the thirty-six (36)-hour period in Article 125[48] of the Revised Penal Code. But while the law subjects such public officers who detain persons beyond the legal period to criminal liability, it must be remembered that the proceeding taken against the detained persons for the act they committed remains unaffected, for the two acts are distinct and separate.[49] This Court is nevertheless mindful of the difficult circumstances faced by the police officers in this case, such as the language barrier, the unresponsiveness of the appellants, the fact that one of the days fell on a Sunday, as well as the disparity in the distances between the different offices. But even assuming that the police officers intentionally delayed the filing of the Information, appellants should have taken steps to report or file charges against the officers. Unfortunately, they cannot now rely on administrative shortcomings of police officers to get a judgment of acquittal for these do not diminish the fact that illegal drugs were found in appellants' possession.[50] | |||||
|
2013-09-11 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The rule is settled that the validity of a judgment is not rendered erroneous solely because the judge who heard the case was not the same judge who rendered the decision. In fact, it is not necessary for the validity of a judgment that the judge who penned the decision should actually hear the case in its entirety, for he can merely rely on the transcribed stenographic notes taken during the trial as the basis for his decision.[15] | |||||
|
2010-07-21 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| A prior surveillance is not a prerequisite for the validity of an entrapment or buy-bust operation, the conduct of which has no rigid or textbook method. Flexibility is a trait of good police work. However the police carry out its entrapment operations, for as long as the rights of the accused have not been violated in the process, the courts will not pass on the wisdom thereof.[33] The police officers may decide that time is of the essence and dispense with the need for prior surveillance.[34] | |||||
|
2009-06-22 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Settled is the rule that the absence of a prior surveillance or test buy does not affect the legality of the buy-bust operation. There is no textbook method of conducting buy-bust operations. The Court has left to the discretion of police authorities the selection of effective means to apprehend drug dealers.[27] A prior surveillance, much less a lengthy one, is not necessary, especially where the police operatives are accompanied by their informant during the entrapment.[28] Flexibility is a trait of good police work.[29] We have held that when time is of the essence, the police may dispense with the need for prior surveillance.[30] In the instant case, having been accompanied by the informant to the person who was peddling the dangerous drugs, the policemen need not have conducted any prior surveillance before they undertook the buy-bust operation. | |||||
|
2008-06-27 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| We do not agree. Settled is the rule that the absence of a prior surveillance or test buy does not affect the legality of the buy-bust operation. There is no textbook method of conducting buy-bust operations. The Court has left to the discretion of police authorities the selection of effective means to apprehend drug dealers.[40] A prior surveillance, much less a lengthy one, is not necessary especially where the police operatives are accompanied by their informant during the entrapment.[41] Flexibility is a trait of good police work.[42] In the instant case, the entrapment or buy-bust operation was conducted without the necessity of any prior surveillance because the confidential informant, who was previously tasked by the buy-bust team leader to order dangerous drugs from appellant Alfredo Concepcion, accompanied the team to the person who was peddling the dangerous drugs. | |||||
|
2007-09-27 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Conversely, appellant's plea of denial and frame-up is unconvincing. Like alibi, frame-up as a defense has invariably been viewed with disfavor as it is a common and standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. Clear and convincing evidence is required to prove the defense of frame-up which Reyes and appellant have failed to proffer.[39] | |||||
|
2007-07-10 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is not unusual for a judge who did not wholly try a case to decide it on the basis of the records on hand after the trial judge who had heard almost entirely the testimony of the witnesses died, resigned, retired, transferred, and so forth. Relative thereto, we have held in several cases that the fact that the judge who heard the evidence is not the one who rendered the judgment; and that for the same reason, the latter did not have the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses during the trial but merely relied on the records of the case does not render the judgment erroneous.[33] Even though the judge who penned the decision was not the judge who heard the testimonies of the witnesses, such is not enough reason to overturn the findings of fact of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses.[34] It may be true that the trial judge who conducted the hearing would be in a better position to ascertain the truth or falsity of the testimonies of the witnesses, but it does not necessarily follow that a judge who was not present during the trial cannot render a valid and just decision.[35] The efficacy of a decision is not necessarily impaired by the fact that its writer only took over from a colleague who had earlier presided at the trial.[36] That a judge did not hear a case does not necessarily render him less competent in assessing the credibility of witnesses. He can rely on the transcripts of stenographic notes of their testimony and calibrate them in accordance with their conformity to common experience, knowledge and observation of ordinary men. Such reliance does not violate substantive and procedural due process of law.[37] | |||||
|
2007-02-08 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Settled is the rule that the absence of a prior surveillance or test-buy does not affect the legality of the buy-bust operation. There is no textbook method of conducting buy-bust operations. The Court has left to the discretion of police authorities the selection of effective means to apprehend drug dealers.[24] A prior surveillance, much less a lengthy one, is not necessary especially where the police operatives are accompanied by their informant during the entrapment.[25] Flexibility is a trait of good police work.[26] In the case at bar, the buy-bust operation was conducted without need of any prior surveillance for the reason that the informant accompanied the policemen to the person who is peddling the dangerous drugs. | |||||
|
2006-12-13 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| Petitioners made much of the fact that the judge who rendered the decision was not the same judge who presided over the entire proceedings below. While it may be true that a trial judge who conducted the hearing would be in a better position to ascertain the truth or falsity of the testimonies of the witnesses, this does not mean, however, that a judge who did not hear a case would be less competent as the first to assess the credibility of witnesses. After all, the evidence presented are all on record and the witnesses' testimonies are reflected in the transcripts of stenographic notes. Reliance on the transcript does not violate substantive and procedural due process.[13] | |||||