This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2015-08-19 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In People v. Gaspar,[23] the Court held that - | |||||
|
2015-02-04 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Under Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the elements of the offense of illegal possession of dangerous drugs are: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.[29] | |||||
|
2015-01-28 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| We are not convinced. As the lower courts have, we likewise adhere to the well-entrenched rule that full faith and credence are given to the narration of police officers who testify for the prosecution on the entrapment or buy-bust operation, because as police officers, they are presumed to have regularly performed their duties.[11] Indeed, the presumption of regularity must prevail over appellants' unsubstantiated allegations. This presumption is overturned only if there is clear and convincing evidence that the officers were not properly performing their duty or that they were inspired by improper motive.[12] In this case, there was none. | |||||
|
2013-06-05 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| To begin with, it is a fundamental principle that findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve the credibility of witnesses are accorded respect when no glaring errors; gross misapprehension of facts; and speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings.[25] This is so because the trial court is in a unique position to observe the witnesses' demeanor on the witness stand.[26] The above rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals,[27] like in the case under consideration. | |||||
|
2012-09-05 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| It has been settled that 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.[20] In the present case, the claim of ill-motive was not substantiated by the accused. The trial court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses convincing, categorical and credible. Findings of the trial court, which are factual in nature and which involve the credibility of witnesses, are accorded respect when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts or speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions are made from such findings.[21] This rule finds an even more stringent application where the findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals, as in the present case.[22] | |||||
|
2011-09-28 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| 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.[41] What is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.[42] 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.[43] In this case, the prosecution has amply proven all the elements of the drugs sale beyond moral certainty. | |||||