Lawyerly

GR No. 198024

2015-03-16

DEL CASTILLO, J.

It is crystal clear from the foregoing that a sale transaction took place between appellant and PO1 Gunda. That the said transaction involved the illegal sale of dangerous drug was sufficiently shown by the prosecution through its establishment of the following elements of the offense: "(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, object and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor."[16] Undoubtedly, appellant was lawfully arrested after he was caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu in a buy-bust operation.

GR No. 207988

2015-03-11

PEOPLE v. BRIAN MERCADO Y SARMIENTO

PEREZ, J.

This Court has consistently ruled that for the successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the following elements must be proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[18] In other words, there is a need to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused actually sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another, and that the former indeed knew that what he had sold and delivered to the latter was a prohibited drug.[19] To reiterate, what is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, plus the presentation in court of corpus delicti as evidence.[20] On the other hand, we have adhered to the time-honored principle that for illegal possession of regulated or prohibited drugs under Section 11 of the same law, the prosecution must establish the following elements: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object, which is identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.[21]

GR No. 194499

2015-01-14

MANUEL R. PORTUGUEZ v. PEOPLE

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

Moreover, it bears stressing that in weighing the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses vis-à-vis those of the defense, the RTC gave more credence to the version of the prosecution. This Court finds no reason to disagree. Well-settled is the rule that in the absence of palpable error or grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge, the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal.[34] The reason for this is that the trial court is in a better position to decide the credibility of witnesses, having heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the CA as in this case.[35]

GR No. 204911

2014-08-06

PEOPLE v. MIKE STEVE Y BASMAN

PEREZ, J.

At the outset, this Court has consistently ruled that for the successful prosecution of offenses involving drug pushing or sale of dangerous or prohibited drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the following elements must be proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, object and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[17] In other words, there is a need to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused actually sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another, and that the former indeed knew that what he had sold and delivered to the latter was a prohibited drug.[18] To reiterate, what is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, plus the presentation in court of corpus delicti as evidence.[19]

GR No. 201725

2014-07-18

PEOPLE v. JOY ALCALA Y NOVILLA

PEREZ, J.

Nonetheless, for academic discussion, it has been consistently ruled that for the successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of drugs under Article II, Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165, the following elements must be proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, object and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[19] In other words, there is a need to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused actually sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another, and that the former indeed knew that what she had sold and delivered to the latter was a prohibited drug.[20] To reiterate, what is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, plus the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence.[21]

GR No. 196146

2014-03-12

PEOPLE v. FREDDIE LADIP Y RUBIO

PEREZ, J.

It has been consistently ruled that for the successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the following elements must be proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, object and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[24] In other words, there is a need to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused actually sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another, and that the former indeed knew that what he had sold and delivered to the latter was a prohibited drug.[25] To reiterate, what is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, plus the presentation in court of corpus delicti as evidence.[26]

GR No. 196973

2013-07-31

PEOPLE v. RUPER POSING Y ALAYON

PEREZ, J.

Both agreed that the illegal sale of shabu was proven beyond reasonable doubt. For the successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the following elements must be proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, object and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material to the 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 evidence of corpus delicti.[30]

GR No. 184658

2013-03-06

PEOPLE v. JUDGE RAFAEL R. LAGOS

SERENO, C.J.

Requiring the CI to testify is an added imposition that runs contrary to jurisprudential doctrine, since the Court has long established that the presentation of an informant is not a requisite for the prosecution of drug cases. The testimony of the CI is not indispensable, since it would be merely corroborative of and cumulative with that of the poseur-buyer who was presented in court, and who testified on the facts and circumstances of the sale and delivery of the prohibited drug.[24]

GR No. 199735

2012-10-24

PEOPLE v. AISA MUSA Y PINASILO

VELASCO JR., J.

As regards accused-appellants' denial and claim of frame-up, the trial and appellate courts correctly ruled that these defenses cannot stand unless the defense could show with clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired with ill motives or that they were not properly performing their duties. The defenses of denial and frame-up are invariably viewed with disfavor because such defenses can easily be fabricated and are common ploy in prosecutions for the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs.[23] Here, in the absence of evidence showing ill motives on the part of the members of the buy-bust team, accused-appellants' denials and plea of frame-up deserve scant consideration in light of the positive identification made by PO1 Memoracion and PO1 Arago.

GR No. 189327

2012-02-29

PEOPLE v. EMILY MENDOZA Y SARTIN

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Simply put, "[w]hat is material to the 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 evidence of corpus delicti."[40]

GR No. 184807

2011-11-23

PEOPLE v. GREGG C. BUENAVENTURA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

For the successful prosecution of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under the aforequoted statutory provision, the following elements must be proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material to the 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 evidence of corpus delicti.[13] The presence of all of these elements in the instant case has been duly established.

GR No. 189325

2011-06-15

PEOPLE v. TEOFILO RAGODON MARCELINO

VELASCO JR., J.

Generally, in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, who are police officers, are given credence for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary. [19] In the present case, the testimonies of the arresting officers as to what happened during the day the buy-bust was conducted were candid and expressed in a straightforward manner; thus, in the absence of any improper motive, said statements are given full faith and credit. [20]

GR No. 187047

2011-06-15

PEOPLE v. MANUEL CRUZ Y CRUZ

PEREZ, J.

Primarily, it is a well-entrenched principle that findings of fact of the trial court as to the credibility of witnesses are accorded great weight and respect when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts, and speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. The rationale behind this rule is that the trial court is in a better position to decide the credibility of witnesses, having heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during trial. This rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals. [29] In the case under consideration, this Court finds no cogent reason to deviate from the findings of the trial court, which were affirmed by the appellate court.

GR No. 191266

2011-06-06

PEOPLE v. DARIUS BAUTISTA Y ORSINO

VELASCO JR., J.

In addition to the RTC's finding of a lack of credibility on the part of the defense's witnesses, it has observed correctly that unless the defense could show with clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired with ill motives or that they were not properly performing their duties, the defense's alibi of frame-up cannot stand. [50] We held in People v. Andres, "The Court has invariably viewed with disfavor the defenses of denial and frame-up. Such defenses can easily be fabricated and are common ploy in prosecutions for the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs." [51]

	GR No. 198024 2015-03-16	PEOPLE v. RAFAEL CUNANAN Y DAVID DEL CASTILLO, J.
It is crystal clear from the foregoing that a sale transaction took place between appellant and PO1 Gunda. That the said transaction involved the illegal sale of dangerous drug was sufficiently shown by the prosecution through its establishment of the following elements of the offense: "(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, object and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor."[16] Undoubtedly, appellant was lawfully arrested after he was caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu in a buy-bust operation.
	GR No. 207988 2015-03-11	PEOPLE v. BRIAN MERCADO Y SARMIENTO PEREZ, J.
This Court has consistently ruled that for the successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the following elements must be proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[18] In other words, there is a need to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused actually sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another, and that the former indeed knew that what he had sold and delivered to the latter was a prohibited drug.[19] To reiterate, what is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, plus the presentation in court of corpus delicti as evidence.[20] On the other hand, we have adhered to the time-honored principle that for illegal possession of regulated or prohibited drugs under Section 11 of the same law, the prosecution must establish the following elements: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object, which is identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.[21]
	GR No. 194499 2015-01-14	MANUEL R. PORTUGUEZ v. PEOPLE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Moreover, it bears stressing that in weighing the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses vis-à-vis those of the defense, the RTC gave more credence to the version of the prosecution. This Court finds no reason to disagree. Well-settled is the rule that in the absence of palpable error or grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge, the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal.[34] The reason for this is that the trial court is in a better position to decide the credibility of witnesses, having heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the CA as in this case.[35]
	GR No. 204911 2014-08-06	PEOPLE v. MIKE STEVE Y BASMAN PEREZ, J.
At the outset, this Court has consistently ruled that for the successful prosecution of offenses involving drug pushing or sale of dangerous or prohibited drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the following elements must be proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, object and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[17] In other words, there is a need to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused actually sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another, and that the former indeed knew that what he had sold and delivered to the latter was a prohibited drug.[18] To reiterate, what is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, plus the presentation in court of corpus delicti as evidence.[19]
	GR No. 201725 2014-07-18	PEOPLE v. JOY ALCALA Y NOVILLA PEREZ, J.
Nonetheless, for academic discussion, it has been consistently ruled that for the successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of drugs under Article II, Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165, the following elements must be proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, object and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[19] In other words, there is a need to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused actually sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another, and that the former indeed knew that what she had sold and delivered to the latter was a prohibited drug.[20] To reiterate, what is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, plus the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence.[21]
	GR No. 196146 2014-03-12	PEOPLE v. FREDDIE LADIP Y RUBIO PEREZ, J.
It has been consistently ruled that for the successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the following elements must be proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, object and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[24] In other words, there is a need to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused actually sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another, and that the former indeed knew that what he had sold and delivered to the latter was a prohibited drug.[25] To reiterate, what is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, plus the presentation in court of corpus delicti as evidence.[26]
	GR No. 196973 2013-07-31	PEOPLE v. RUPER POSING Y ALAYON PEREZ, J.
Both agreed that the illegal sale of shabu was proven beyond reasonable doubt. For the successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the following elements must be proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, object and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material to the 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 evidence of corpus delicti.[30]
	GR No. 184658 2013-03-06	PEOPLE v. JUDGE RAFAEL R. LAGOS SERENO, C.J.
Requiring the CI to testify is an added imposition that runs contrary to jurisprudential doctrine, since the Court has long established that the presentation of an informant is not a requisite for the prosecution of drug cases. The testimony of the CI is not indispensable, since it would be merely corroborative of and cumulative with that of the poseur-buyer who was presented in court, and who testified on the facts and circumstances of the sale and delivery of the prohibited drug.[24]
	GR No. 199735 2012-10-24	PEOPLE v. AISA MUSA Y PINASILO VELASCO JR., J.
As regards accused-appellants' denial and claim of frame-up, the trial and appellate courts correctly ruled that these defenses cannot stand unless the defense could show with clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired with ill motives or that they were not properly performing their duties. The defenses of denial and frame-up are invariably viewed with disfavor because such defenses can easily be fabricated and are common ploy in prosecutions for the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs.[23] Here, in the absence of evidence showing ill motives on the part of the members of the buy-bust team, accused-appellants' denials and plea of frame-up deserve scant consideration in light of the positive identification made by PO1 Memoracion and PO1 Arago.
	GR No. 189327 2012-02-29	PEOPLE v. EMILY MENDOZA Y SARTIN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Simply put, "[w]hat is material to the 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 evidence of corpus delicti."[40]
	GR No. 184807 2011-11-23	PEOPLE v. GREGG C. BUENAVENTURA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
For the successful prosecution of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under the aforequoted statutory provision, the following elements must be proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material to the 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 evidence of corpus delicti.[13] The presence of all of these elements in the instant case has been duly established.
	GR No. 189325 2011-06-15	PEOPLE v. TEOFILO RAGODON MARCELINO VELASCO JR., J.
Generally, in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, who are police officers, are given credence for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary. [19] In the present case, the testimonies of the arresting officers as to what happened during the day the buy-bust was conducted were candid and expressed in a straightforward manner; thus, in the absence of any improper motive, said statements are given full faith and credit. [20]
	GR No. 187047 2011-06-15	PEOPLE v. MANUEL CRUZ Y CRUZ PEREZ, J.
Primarily, it is a well-entrenched principle that findings of fact of the trial court as to the credibility of witnesses are accorded great weight and respect when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts, and speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. The rationale behind this rule is that the trial court is in a better position to decide the credibility of witnesses, having heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during trial. This rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals. [29] In the case under consideration, this Court finds no cogent reason to deviate from the findings of the trial court, which were affirmed by the appellate court.
	GR No. 191266 2011-06-06	PEOPLE v. DARIUS BAUTISTA Y ORSINO VELASCO JR., J.
In addition to the RTC's finding of a lack of credibility on the part of the defense's witnesses, it has observed correctly that unless the defense could show with clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired with ill motives or that they were not properly performing their duties, the defense's alibi of frame-up cannot stand. [50] We held in People v. Andres, "The Court has invariably viewed with disfavor the defenses of denial and frame-up. Such defenses can easily be fabricated and are common ploy in prosecutions for the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs." [51]

PEOPLE v. MICHAEL ANDRES Y TRINIDAD