Lawyerly

GR No. 195194

2015-11-25

PEREZ, J.

The argument is erroneous. In the prosecution of a case of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the absence of marked money does not create a hiatus in the evidence for the prosecution as long as the sale of dangerous drug is adequately proven and the drug subject of the transaction is presented before the court.[11] Neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any money used in the buy-bust operation.[12] What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence.[13] In the instant case, the prosecution was able to establish the consummated transaction between the poseur-buyer and accused-appellants.

GR No. 198452

2014-02-19

PEOPLE v. VICENTE ROM

PEREZ, J.

Time and again, this Court held that denial is an inherently weak defense and has always been viewed upon with disfavor by the courts due to the ease with which it can be concocted. Inherently weak, denial as a defense crumbles in the light of positive identification of the appellant, as in this case. The defense of denial assumes significance only when the prosecution's evidence is such that it does not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which is not the case here. Verily, mere denial, unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative self-serving evidence which cannot be given greater evidentiary weight than the testimony of the prosecution witness who testified on affirmative matters.[55] Moreover, there is a presumption that public officers, including the arresting officers, regularly perform their official duties.[56] In this case, the defense failed to overcome this presumption by presenting clear and convincing evidence. Furthermore, this Court finds no ill motive that could be attributed to the police officers who had conducted the buy-bust operation. Even the allegation of the appellant that PO2 Martinez got angry with him when he failed to pinpoint the big time pusher cannot be considered as the ill motive in implicating the appellant on all the three charges against him for this is self-serving and uncorroborated.

GR No. 185166

2011-01-26

PEOPLE v. MARK LESTER DELA ROSA Y SUELLO

PEREZ, J.

Similarly, the alleged contradiction and inconsistency pointed to by appellant in the testimony of PO3 Lowaton as regards the pre-arranged signal agreed upon by the buy-bust team is only minor, trivial, immaterial, and does not in any way affect the credibility of PO3 Lowaton's testimony, since his testimony clearly and categorically established the sale of marijuana. Such minor inconsistency referring to the details of the sale of marijuana may be considered as badges of truth rather than of falsehood.[41]

GR No. 171980

2010-10-06

PEOPLE v. OLIVE RUBIO MAMARIL

PEREZ, J.

The trial court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution was not adequately defeated. Re-stating that in illegal possession of prohibited drugs, there are only three (3) elements to secure conviction: (1) accused is in possession of the prohibited drugs; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) accused consciously and freely possessed the prohibited drugs,[20] the trial court held that all these were established beyond doubt. It determined that appellant failed to proffer evidence enough to discredit the prosecution and render doubtful his guilt.[21]

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]

GR No. 186497

2009-09-17

PEOPLE v. HASANADDIN GUIARA Y BANSIL

VELASCO JR., J.

Furthermore, contrary to accused-appellant's contentions, the minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of the police officers are too insufficient or insubstantial to overturn the judgment of conviction against him, since those testimonies are consistent on material points. Time and time again, this Court has ruled that the witnesses' testimonies need only to corroborate one another on material details surrounding the actual commission of the crime.[18] Questions as to the exact street where the illegal sale was consummated do not in any way impair the credibility of the witnesses. To secure a reversal of the appealed judgment, such inconsistencies should pertain to that crucial moment when the accused was caught selling shabu, not to peripheral matters.[19]

GR No. 170137

2009-08-27

PEOPLE v. RANDY MAGBANUA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Well-settled is the rule that prosecutions involving the possession of illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officer. This Court has access only to the cold and impersonal records of the proceedings. Thus, the Court relies heavily on the rule that the weighing of evidence, particularly when there are conflicts in the testimonies of witnesses, is best left to the trial court which had the unique opportunity to observe their demeanor, conduct, and manner while testifying. Hence, its factual findings are accorded respect, even finality, absent any showing that certain facts of weight and substance bearing on the elements of the crime have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied.[20]

GR No. 179478

2008-07-28

PEOPLE v. JINGGOY MATEO Y RODRIGUEZ

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

At this juncture, it is best to emphasize that prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation;[43] under these circumstances, the Court relies on the rule that the weighing of evidence, particularly conflicts in the testimonies of witnesses, is best left to the discretion of the trial court, which had the best opportunity to observe their demeanor, conduct and manner while testifying.[44] Such an opportunity is denied to the appellate courts.[45] For this reason, the trial court's findings are accorded finality, unless there appears on the record some fact or circumstance of weight which the lower court may have overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would alter the results of the case.[46] When this Court is asked to go over the evidence presented by the parties and to analyze, assess and weigh the same to ascertain if the trial court, as affirmed by the appellate court, was correct in according superior credit to this or that piece of evidence and, eventually, to the totality of the evidence of one party or the other, the Court will not do the same.[47] When the trial court's factual findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally conclusive and binding upon the Court.[48] In the instant case, we find no compelling reason to reverse the findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals. We do so for the following critical points: First, all the necessary elements for the prosecution of the illegal sale of drugs were established. The elements are the following: (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[49] It is beyond reasonable doubt that the transaction actually took place, as ruled by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court. Prosecution witness PO2 Ortiz narrated that he was introduced by the informant to defendant-appellant as a buyer of shabu. PO2 Ortiz then told defendant-appellant that he was going to buy shabu worth P200.00. PO2 Ortiz was then handed a small plastic sachet containing the prohibited drug. After his receipt of the item, he handed defendant-appellant the money. PO2 Ortiz then gave the pre-arranged signal and introduced himself to defendant-appellant as a police office. Following the pre-arranged signal, the rest of the team rushed to the scene. Thus:

GR No. 171310

2008-07-09

PEOPLE v. SANNY CABACABA Y GAYOSO

QUISUMBING, J.

In a prosecution for violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, usually a case becomes a contest of credibility between the accused and the police, the witnesses and their testimonies. Generally this Court relies upon the assessment by the trial court, which had the distinct advantage of observing the conduct or demeanor of the witnesses while they were testifying.[25] The factual findings by the trial court are accorded respect, even finality, absent any showing that certain facts of weight and substance bearing on the elements of the crime have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied.[26] We find no justifiable reason to deviate from this rule in the case before us.[27]

GR No. 178876

2008-06-27

PEOPLE v. ALFREDO CONCEPCION Y CLEMENTE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The failure of the PDEA operatives to record the boodle money will not render the buy-bust operation illegal. The recording of marked money used in a buy-bust operation is not one of the elements for the prosecution of sale of illegal drugs. The recording or non-recording thereof in an official record will not necessarily lead to an acquittal as long as the sale of the prohibited drug is adequately proven.[43] In the case at bar, PO2 Sistemio, the poseur buyer and PO2 Arojado testified as to how the shabu subject of the case was seized from appellants. Settled is the rule that in the prosecution for the sale of dangerous drugs, the absence of marked money does not create a hiatus in the evidence for the prosecution as long as the sale of dangerous drugs is adequately proven and the drug subject of the transaction is presented before the court. Neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any money used in the buy-bust operation. [44] What is material to a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence.[45] The prosecution duly established both in this case.

GR NO. 152848

2006-07-12

TERESITA SUSON Y BANZON v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Such argument will not help petitioners get out of the predicament they are in. The recording of marked money used in a buy-bust operation is not one of the elements for the prosecution of sale of illegal drugs. The recording or non-recording thereof in an official record will not necessarily lead to an acquittal as long as the sale of the prohibited drug is adequately proven. In the case at bar, SPO2 Patiño, the poseur-buyer, testified on the circumstances regarding the sale of the shabu for which petitioners were charged and convicted. Settled is the rule that in the prosecution for the sale of dangerous drugs, the absence of marked money does not create a hiatus in the evidence for the prosecution as long as the sale of dangerous drugs is adequately proven and the drug subject of the transaction is presented before the court. Neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any money used in the buy-bust operation.[24] What is material to a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence.[25] In the instant case, both were sufficiently shown by the prosecution.

GR No. 148586

2004-05-25

PEOPLE v. LI KA KIM

VITUG, J.

Appellant's argument that a surveillance or a test buy should have first been conducted deserves scant consideration. In a prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, it is enough to show that - (1) the accused is in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or a regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused has freely and consciously possessed the prohibited drug.[11] Neither a prior surveillance of the suspected offender[12] nor the presentation of the informant would be an indispensable requirement to the successful prosecution of a drug case.[13]

GR No. 150663

2004-02-05

PEOPLE v. WU TUAN YUAN

CARPIO, J.

The crux of this case is the alleged illegal sale of shabu by appellant. In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, what is material is proof that the accused peddled illicit drugs, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti.[14] The testimonies of the buy-bust team established that police officers legitimately and successfully carried out an operation on 15 August 1999 to apprehend appellant. The positive identification of appellant by poseur buyer PO2 Diaz as the one who peddled the shabu unequivocally established the illicit sale as PO2 Diaz is the best witness to the transaction. Nevertheless, PO2 Diaz's testimony was corroborated in every material detail by the other operatives who participated in the buy bust operation, namely SPO3 Abaga, SPO1 Castillo and SPO1 De la Rosa. As found a quo, the consummated sale between PO2 Diaz and appellant led to the eventual arrest of appellant.[15]

GR No. 145915

2003-04-24

PEOPLE v. VILMA ALMENDRAS Y ZAPATA

QUISUMBING, J.

Prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conduct the "buy-bust" operation.[50] Hence, in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Law, appellate courts tend to heavily rely upon the trial court in assessing the credibility of witnesses, as it had the unique opportunity, denied to the appellate courts, to observe the witnesses and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under direct and cross-examination.[51] Hence, its factual findings are accorded great respect, even finality, absent any showing that certain facts of weight and substance bearing on the elements of the crime have been overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied.[52]

GR Nos. 149872-73

2003-03-14

PEOPLE v. ROSDIA HAJILI Y SAKILAN

PANGANIBAN, J.

In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must first be established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.[13]

	GR No. 195194 2015-11-25	PEOPLE v. KAMAD AKMAD Y ULIMPAIN PEREZ, J.
The argument is erroneous. In the prosecution of a case of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the absence of marked money does not create a hiatus in the evidence for the prosecution as long as the sale of dangerous drug is adequately proven and the drug subject of the transaction is presented before the court.[11] Neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any money used in the buy-bust operation.[12] What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence.[13] In the instant case, the prosecution was able to establish the consummated transaction between the poseur-buyer and accused-appellants.
	GR No. 198452 2014-02-19	PEOPLE v. VICENTE ROM PEREZ, J.
Time and again, this Court held that denial is an inherently weak defense and has always been viewed upon with disfavor by the courts due to the ease with which it can be concocted. Inherently weak, denial as a defense crumbles in the light of positive identification of the appellant, as in this case. The defense of denial assumes significance only when the prosecution's evidence is such that it does not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which is not the case here. Verily, mere denial, unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative self-serving evidence which cannot be given greater evidentiary weight than the testimony of the prosecution witness who testified on affirmative matters.[55] Moreover, there is a presumption that public officers, including the arresting officers, regularly perform their official duties.[56] In this case, the defense failed to overcome this presumption by presenting clear and convincing evidence. Furthermore, this Court finds no ill motive that could be attributed to the police officers who had conducted the buy-bust operation. Even the allegation of the appellant that PO2 Martinez got angry with him when he failed to pinpoint the big time pusher cannot be considered as the ill motive in implicating the appellant on all the three charges against him for this is self-serving and uncorroborated.
	GR No. 185166 2011-01-26	PEOPLE v. MARK LESTER DELA ROSA Y SUELLO PEREZ, J.
Similarly, the alleged contradiction and inconsistency pointed to by appellant in the testimony of PO3 Lowaton as regards the pre-arranged signal agreed upon by the buy-bust team is only minor, trivial, immaterial, and does not in any way affect the credibility of PO3 Lowaton's testimony, since his testimony clearly and categorically established the sale of marijuana. Such minor inconsistency referring to the details of the sale of marijuana may be considered as badges of truth rather than of falsehood.[41]
	GR No. 171980 2010-10-06	PEOPLE v. OLIVE RUBIO MAMARIL PEREZ, J.
The trial court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution was not adequately defeated. Re-stating that in illegal possession of prohibited drugs, there are only three (3) elements to secure conviction: (1) accused is in possession of the prohibited drugs; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) accused consciously and freely possessed the prohibited drugs,[20] the trial court held that all these were established beyond doubt. It determined that appellant failed to proffer evidence enough to discredit the prosecution and render doubtful his guilt.[21]
	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]
	GR No. 186497 2009-09-17	PEOPLE v. HASANADDIN GUIARA Y BANSIL VELASCO JR., J.
Furthermore, contrary to accused-appellant's contentions, the minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of the police officers are too insufficient or insubstantial to overturn the judgment of conviction against him, since those testimonies are consistent on material points. Time and time again, this Court has ruled that the witnesses' testimonies need only to corroborate one another on material details surrounding the actual commission of the crime.[18] Questions as to the exact street where the illegal sale was consummated do not in any way impair the credibility of the witnesses. To secure a reversal of the appealed judgment, such inconsistencies should pertain to that crucial moment when the accused was caught selling shabu, not to peripheral matters.[19]
	GR No. 170137 2009-08-27	PEOPLE v. RANDY MAGBANUA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Well-settled is the rule that prosecutions involving the possession of illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officer. This Court has access only to the cold and impersonal records of the proceedings. Thus, the Court relies heavily on the rule that the weighing of evidence, particularly when there are conflicts in the testimonies of witnesses, is best left to the trial court which had the unique opportunity to observe their demeanor, conduct, and manner while testifying. Hence, its factual findings are accorded respect, even finality, absent any showing that certain facts of weight and substance bearing on the elements of the crime have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied.[20]
	GR No. 179478 2008-07-28	PEOPLE v. JINGGOY MATEO Y RODRIGUEZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
At this juncture, it is best to emphasize that prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation;[43] under these circumstances, the Court relies on the rule that the weighing of evidence, particularly conflicts in the testimonies of witnesses, is best left to the discretion of the trial court, which had the best opportunity to observe their demeanor, conduct and manner while testifying.[44] Such an opportunity is denied to the appellate courts.[45] For this reason, the trial court's findings are accorded finality, unless there appears on the record some fact or circumstance of weight which the lower court may have overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would alter the results of the case.[46] When this Court is asked to go over the evidence presented by the parties and to analyze, assess and weigh the same to ascertain if the trial court, as affirmed by the appellate court, was correct in according superior credit to this or that piece of evidence and, eventually, to the totality of the evidence of one party or the other, the Court will not do the same.[47] When the trial court's factual findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally conclusive and binding upon the Court.[48] In the instant case, we find no compelling reason to reverse the findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals. We do so for the following critical points: First, all the necessary elements for the prosecution of the illegal sale of drugs were established. The elements are the following: (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[49] It is beyond reasonable doubt that the transaction actually took place, as ruled by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court. Prosecution witness PO2 Ortiz narrated that he was introduced by the informant to defendant-appellant as a buyer of shabu. PO2 Ortiz then told defendant-appellant that he was going to buy shabu worth P200.00. PO2 Ortiz was then handed a small plastic sachet containing the prohibited drug. After his receipt of the item, he handed defendant-appellant the money. PO2 Ortiz then gave the pre-arranged signal and introduced himself to defendant-appellant as a police office. Following the pre-arranged signal, the rest of the team rushed to the scene. Thus:
	GR No. 171310 2008-07-09	PEOPLE v. SANNY CABACABA Y GAYOSO QUISUMBING, J.
In a prosecution for violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, usually a case becomes a contest of credibility between the accused and the police, the witnesses and their testimonies. Generally this Court relies upon the assessment by the trial court, which had the distinct advantage of observing the conduct or demeanor of the witnesses while they were testifying.[25] The factual findings by the trial court are accorded respect, even finality, absent any showing that certain facts of weight and substance bearing on the elements of the crime have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied.[26] We find no justifiable reason to deviate from this rule in the case before us.[27]
	GR No. 178876 2008-06-27	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO CONCEPCION Y CLEMENTE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The failure of the PDEA operatives to record the boodle money will not render the buy-bust operation illegal. The recording of marked money used in a buy-bust operation is not one of the elements for the prosecution of sale of illegal drugs. The recording or non-recording thereof in an official record will not necessarily lead to an acquittal as long as the sale of the prohibited drug is adequately proven.[43] In the case at bar, PO2 Sistemio, the poseur buyer and PO2 Arojado testified as to how the shabu subject of the case was seized from appellants. Settled is the rule that in the prosecution for the sale of dangerous drugs, the absence of marked money does not create a hiatus in the evidence for the prosecution as long as the sale of dangerous drugs is adequately proven and the drug subject of the transaction is presented before the court. Neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any money used in the buy-bust operation. [44] What is material to a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence.[45] The prosecution duly established both in this case.
	GR NO. 152848 2006-07-12	TERESITA SUSON Y BANZON v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Such argument will not help petitioners get out of the predicament they are in. The recording of marked money used in a buy-bust operation is not one of the elements for the prosecution of sale of illegal drugs. The recording or non-recording thereof in an official record will not necessarily lead to an acquittal as long as the sale of the prohibited drug is adequately proven. In the case at bar, SPO2 Patiño, the poseur-buyer, testified on the circumstances regarding the sale of the shabu for which petitioners were charged and convicted. Settled is the rule that in the prosecution for the sale of dangerous drugs, the absence of marked money does not create a hiatus in the evidence for the prosecution as long as the sale of dangerous drugs is adequately proven and the drug subject of the transaction is presented before the court. Neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any money used in the buy-bust operation.[24] What is material to a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence.[25] In the instant case, both were sufficiently shown by the prosecution.
	GR No. 148586 2004-05-25	PEOPLE v. LI KA KIM VITUG, J.
Appellant's argument that a surveillance or a test buy should have first been conducted deserves scant consideration. In a prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, it is enough to show that - (1) the accused is in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or a regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused has freely and consciously possessed the prohibited drug.[11] Neither a prior surveillance of the suspected offender[12] nor the presentation of the informant would be an indispensable requirement to the successful prosecution of a drug case.[13]
	GR No. 150663 2004-02-05	PEOPLE v. WU TUAN YUAN CARPIO, J.
The crux of this case is the alleged illegal sale of shabu by appellant. In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, what is material is proof that the accused peddled illicit drugs, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti.[14] The testimonies of the buy-bust team established that police officers legitimately and successfully carried out an operation on 15 August 1999 to apprehend appellant. The positive identification of appellant by poseur buyer PO2 Diaz as the one who peddled the shabu unequivocally established the illicit sale as PO2 Diaz is the best witness to the transaction. Nevertheless, PO2 Diaz's testimony was corroborated in every material detail by the other operatives who participated in the buy bust operation, namely SPO3 Abaga, SPO1 Castillo and SPO1 De la Rosa. As found a quo, the consummated sale between PO2 Diaz and appellant led to the eventual arrest of appellant.[15]
	GR No. 145915 2003-04-24	PEOPLE v. VILMA ALMENDRAS Y ZAPATA QUISUMBING, J.
Prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conduct the "buy-bust" operation.[50] Hence, in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Law, appellate courts tend to heavily rely upon the trial court in assessing the credibility of witnesses, as it had the unique opportunity, denied to the appellate courts, to observe the witnesses and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under direct and cross-examination.[51] Hence, its factual findings are accorded great respect, even finality, absent any showing that certain facts of weight and substance bearing on the elements of the crime have been overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied.[52]
	GR Nos. 149872-73 2003-03-14	PEOPLE v. ROSDIA HAJILI Y SAKILAN PANGANIBAN, J.
In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must first be established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.[13]

PEOPLE v. CHEN TIZ CHANG