Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. BERLY FABRO Y AZUCENA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 184546 2010-02-22	PEOPLE v. WILSON SUAN Y JOLONGON DEL CASTILLO, J.
The doubt cast by the appellant on whether marked money was used in the operation did not in any way shatter the factuality of the transaction. Neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any of the money used in a buy-bust operation.[17] Much less is it required that the money be marked. In fact, not even the absence or non-presentation of the marked money would weaken the evidence for the prosecution.[18] The elements necessary to show that the crime had indeed been committed are proof that the illicit transaction took place coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug.[19]
	GRNo. 165376 2009-04-16	AMADO BELTRAN v. MA. AMELITA VILLAROSA PERALTA, J.
Petitioner alleged that the documents he relied upon were public documents and had the presumption of regularity so that to contradict the same, there must be evidence that is clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant. He cited People v. Fabro,[30] which held that a writing or document made contemporaneously with a transaction in which are evidenced facts pertinent to an issue, when admitted as proof of these facts, is ordinarily regarded as more reliable proof and of greater probative value than oral testimony of a witness as to such facts based upon memory and recollection because human memory is fallible and its force diminishes with the lapse of time.
	GR No. 141532 2004-04-14	PEOPLE v. GATUDAN BALAG-EY PANGANIBAN, J.
For like reason, the presentation of the buy-bust money[46] and proof of its actual payment[47] -- pieces of evidence that are otherwise not indispensable -- become necessary if the constitutional presumption of innocence is to be overcome. In the present case, the material inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witness and the non-presentation of the buy-bust money raise reasonable doubts about the occurrence of a buy-bust operation.
	GR No. 150735 2004-03-15	PEOPLE v. STEPHEN CADLEY Y CIANO CARPIO MORALES, J.
[22] People v. Fabro, G.R. No. 114261, February 10, 2000, 325 SCRA 285, 294.