This case has been cited 23 times or more.
|
2015-03-11 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| With respect to the seized illegal substance, the presentation of the drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and its existence is indispensable to a judgment of conviction. It behooves upon the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the narcotic substance. It must be shown that the item subject of the offense is the same substance offered in court as exhibit.[23] The chain of custody requirements provided for in Section 21, Article II of R.A. 9165 performs this function as it ensures the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the item so that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.[24] | |||||
|
2015-02-23 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The chain of custody requirement aims to ensure that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item are preserved, so much so that doubts as to the identity of the evidence are removed. "To be admissible, the prosecution must show by records or testimony, the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit at least between the time it came into possession of the police officers and until it was tested in the laboratory to determine its composition up to the time it was offered in evidence."[11] | |||||
|
2015-02-16 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| In his testimony, PO2 Salonga, the poseur-buyer, positively identified appellant as the seller of the plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance which was later identified by the PNP Forensic Chemist to be positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. The same sachet and substance was identified in court by PO2 Salonga as the shabu sold to him by appellant for the sum of P200.00. As correctly ruled, therefore, by both lower courts, all the elements of the offense of illegal sale of shabu are obtaining in this case. In the same vein, appellant, upon being frisked after his apprehension, was found possessing another plastic sachet containing 0.15 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. There is no evidence on record showing that he was legally authorized to possess the same. Neither was there any explanation that he did not freely or consciously possess the said illegal drug. Settled is the rule that "possession of dangerous drugs constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi, which is sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of a satisfactory explanation of such possession."[13] Clearly, all the elements of the offense of illegal possession of dangerous drugs are likewise present in this case. | |||||
|
2015-01-28 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| There is no inconsistency in the testimonies of the PDEA intelligence officers IO1 Merton P. Fesway (IO1 Fesway) and IO1 Efren Esmin (IO1 Esmin), as their narration actually agree on their position "between the tree and the gate" while monitoring the activities of Pasion who was at the waiting shed. From the vantage point on the left side of the National Highway, the intelligence officers saw Pasion conduct illegal activities, i.e. the sale of what turned out to be dangerous drugs. The alleged discrepancies in the narrations of IO1 Fesway and IO1 Esmin are too minor for the courts to discard their testimonies and conclude that the two were lying. The discrepancy neither affects the truth of the testimonies of prosecution witnesses nor discredits their positive identification of appellant.[9] | |||||
|
2014-09-24 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and consideration of the sale and the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[23] Hence, to establish a concrete case, it is an utmost importance to prove the identity of the narcotic substance itself as it constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction. It is therefore imperative for the prosecution to first establish beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the dangerous drug before asserting other arguments.[24] | |||||
|
2014-09-24 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In People v. Unisa[40] this Court held that "in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drug Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary suggesting ill-motive on the part of the police officers." | |||||
|
2013-11-13 |
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] | |||||
|
2013-10-23 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| For the prosecution of illegal possession of dangerous drugs to prosper, the following essential elements must be proven, namely: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object that is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possess the said drug.[30] Accused-appellant Maongco informed the police officers that the other sachet of shabu was in the possession of accused-appellant Bandali. Accused-appellant Bandali herein was in possession of the sachet of shabu as he was sitting at Jollibee Pantranco branch and was approached by PO2 Ong. Hence, accused-appellant Bandali was able to immediately produce and surrender the said sachet upon demand by PO2 Ong. Accused-appellant Bandali, admittedly jobless at the time of his arrest,[31] did not have any authority to possess shabu. And as to the last element, the rule is settled that possession of dangerous drugs constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi, which is sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of a satisfactory explanation of such possession.[32] | |||||
|
2013-10-16 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In People v. Unisa,[59] this Court held that "in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary suggesting ill-motive on the part of the police officers." | |||||
|
2013-06-19 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In People v. Llanita[51] citing People v. Unisa,[52] the Court ruled that in order to successfully prosecute an offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu, the following elements must first be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and consideration of the sale; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. | |||||
|
2013-06-19 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| It must be noted that possession of dangerous drugs constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi, which is sufficient to convict him, unless there is a satisfactory explanation of such possession. The burden of evidence is, thus, shifted to Lucio to explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi.[58] In this case, the illegal possession came about when Lucio allowed PO1Castro to look for other bricks inside the sack. The following narration shows wilful possession of illegal drugs: Q: What did you actually tell him? A: I told him it cost a lot, Sir. Q: And so what did he say? A: He said that if I will take at least five (5) bricks of marijuana he will give it for P800.00 per brick, Sir. Q: So for five (5) bricks that would be about… A: P4,000.00, Sir. Q: What did you say to that? A: I asked him to look for the sample of the marijuana in order to determine if it is with good quality, Sir. Q: What did he do to comply with your request? A: He asked Wilma Padillo to get sample inside their shanty, Sir. Q: What happened next? A: Wilma Padillo reached for the half opened door just behind the door of their shanty that sample, Sir.[59] x x x x Q: From the time that it was given to you by the accused Wilma Padillo, who had custody of it if you know? A: I took hold of this as my sample but at the same time requested the couple to see if there are some other things because it appears to be like it doesn't look like one (1) kilo. Q: What did the two (2) say to that request of yours? A: I requested if Benedict would allow me to go inside their shanty and to look for something that has a bigger size, Sir. Q: What happened next after that? A: He acceded, he allowed me to enter inside their shanty, Sir.[60] x x x x Q: What happened next? A: When I entered their shanty, I noticed a white nylon sack just behind the door with some marijuana bricks inside, Sir. Q: Is that the same door where Benedict and Wilma were standing? A: Yes, Sir. Q: And that is the same door you were facing while you were talking with Benedict and Wilma? A: Yes, Sir. Q: How were you able to see this white nylon sack? A: Benedict pointed it, Sir. Q: When he pointed it did you see anything? A: He said that I can choose what brick I wanted, Sir. Q: How did he say it? A: In Ilocano, Sir. Q: Tell us how he told it in Ilocano? A: "Agpili ka latta ditan", Sir. COURT: Which means "just choose from the sack." Q: After he said that what happened next? A: I carefully choose one but I opted to get hold of the previous one that was given to me and told "daytoy laengan", Sir.[61] | |||||
|
2013-06-19 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The function of the chain of custody requirement is to ensure that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, so much so that unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the evidence are removed. To be admissible, the prosecution must show by records or testimony, the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit at least between the time it came into possession of the police officers and until it was tested in the laboratory to determine its composition up to the time it was offered in evidence.[86] | |||||
|
2013-03-06 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| The only elements necessary to consummate the crime of illegal sale of drugs is proof that the illicit transaction took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.[20] In buy-bust operations, the delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the seller's receipt of the marked money successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and the accused. Unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or were not properly performing their duty, their testimonies on the operation deserve faith and credit. [21] The Court has held that when police officers have no motive to testify falsely against the accused, courts are inclined to uphold the presumption of regularity accorded to them in the performance of their official duties.[22] In the present case, there is no contention that the members of AIDSOTF who conducted the buy-bust operation were motivated by ill will or malice. Neither was there evidence adduced to show that they neglected to perform their duties properly. Hence, their testimonies as to the conduct of the buy-bust operation deserves full faith and credence. | |||||
|
2013-02-27 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| As found by the lower courts, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs: (1) the accused sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another and (2) knew that what was sold and delivered was a prohibited drug;[12] and illegal possession of dangerous drugs: (1) the accused is in possession of the object identified as a prohibited or regulatory drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.[13] | |||||
|
2013-02-13 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and consideration of the sale and the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[11] | |||||
|
2013-02-06 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| What is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of the corpus delicti.[38] The commission of illegal sale merely consummates the selling transaction, which happens the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller. As long as the police officer went through the operation as a buyer, whose offer was accepted by seller, followed by the delivery of the dangerous drugs to the former, the crime is already consummated.[39] | |||||
|
2013-02-06 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In this case, there is absolute lack of evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were stirred by illicit motive or had improperly performed their duties in arresting Linda and Elizabeth. Both Linda and Elizabeth admitted that they did not know the police officers prior to their arrest. Hence, there could not have been any bad blood between them and said police officers.[20] The Court further quotes with approval the following observations of the RTC on the matter: It is (sic) appears remote that the police officers, in so far as the circumstances obtaining in this case, could openly do the act being attributed to them by the accused. That, Ibasco and Reburiano, for no reason at all, would instantly flagged (sic) down a passenger jeepney and forcibly drag and then frisked (sic) some of its passengers, herein accused and their children, and thereafter, transferred them into another vehicle. | |||||
|
2013-02-06 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| 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. The commission of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu, requires simply the consummation of the selling transaction, which happens at the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller. In short, what is material is the proof showing that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the thing sold as evidence of the corpus delicti. If a police officer goes through the operation as a buyer, the crime is consummated when the police officer makes an offer to buy that is accepted by the accused, and there is an ensuing exchange between them involving the delivery of the dangerous drugs to the police officer.[10] | |||||
|
2012-12-05 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In order to successfully prosecute an offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu, the following elements must first be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and consideration of the sale; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[59] | |||||
|
2012-10-03 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In order to successfully prosecute an offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu, the following elements must first be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and consideration of the sale; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[51] | |||||
|
2012-09-17 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Second, the inconsistencies[11] pointed out by the appellants in the sworn statement, the Joint-Affidavit and the testimonies of PO Hamdani and PO Paculdar refer to trivial matters relating to the crimes charged which have no direct bearing on the actual sale of shabu between PO Hamdani and the appellants. In this light, we cannot consider the cited inconsistencies fatal to the prosecution's case as they all the more bolstered up, rather than disproved, the sale of shabu between PO Hamdani and the appellants. In People of the Philippines v. Ricky Unisa y Islan,[12] we ruled that the sale of prohibited drugs is consummated upon delivery of the drugs to the buyer: For a successful prosecution of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu, the following elements must first be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and consideration of the sale; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti. Clearly, the commission of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu, merely requires the consummation of the selling transaction, which happens the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller. As long as the police officer went through the operation as a buyer, whose offer was accepted by appellant, followed by the delivery of the dangerous drugs to the former, the crime is already consummated. In this case, the prosecution has amply proven all the elements of the drugs sale beyond moral certainty. [italics and emphases supplied] | |||||
|
2012-08-15 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| As against the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the defense of denial offered by Ambre must simply fail. Bare denials cannot prevail over positive identification made by the prosecution witnesses.[24] Besides, this Court has held in a catena of cases that the defense of denial or frame-up has been viewed with disfavor for it can just as easily be concocted and is a common and standard ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.[25] | |||||
|
2012-03-12 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, the CA is correct in giving credence to the testimonies of the police officers as regards the timely submission of the subject illegal drugs since they are presumed to have regularly performed their duties, unless there is evidence suggesting ill-motive on the part of the police officers.[34] In this case, the accused-appellants failed to contradict the presumption. What goes against the accused-appellants is the fact that they have not offered any evidence of ill-motive against the police officers. Emily even admitted that she did not know PO1 Area, the poseur-buyer.[35] Considering that there was no existing relationship between the police officers and the accused-appellants, the former could not be accused of improper motive to falsely testify against the accused-appellants. In People v. Dumangay,[36] we upheld the findings of the lower court on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties because there was no proof of ill-motive. Therein, the accused-appellant's self-serving and uncorroborated defenses did not prevail over the trial court's findings on the credibility of witnesses. The same may be said in the present case. | |||||