Lawyerly

GR No. 195850

2015-02-16

DEL CASTILLO, J.

To sustain a conviction under Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165, all that is needed for the prosecution to establish are (1) the identity of the buyer, seller, object and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[11] In illegal possession of dangerous drugs, on the other hand, it is necessary to prove that: (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 drug.[12]

GR No. 200987

2014-08-20

PEOPLE v. RONALDO BAYAN Y NERI

PEREZ, J.

Appellant's defense, which is predicated on a bare denial, deserves scant consideration in light of the positive testimonies of the police officers. The defense of frame-up or denial in drug cases requires strong and convincing evidence because of the presumption that the law enforcement agencies acted in the regular performance of their official duties.[18] Bare denials of appellant cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of the three police officers.[19] Moreover, there is no evidence of any improper motive on the part of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation to falsely testify against appellant.

GR No. 205610

2014-07-30

PEOPLE v. RAMONITO VILLARTA Y RIVERA

PEREZ, J.

In every prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like ephedrine in this case, the following elements must be sufficiently proved to sustain a conviction therefor: (1) the identity of the buyer, as well as 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 the dangerous drugs seized as evidence. The commission of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs requires merely the consummation of the selling transaction, which happens the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller. Settled is the rule that as long as the police officer went through the operation as a buyer and his offer was accepted by appellant and the dangerous drugs delivered to the former; the crime is considered consummated by the delivery of the goods.[28]

GR No. 203028

2014-01-15

PEOPLE v. JOSELITO BERAN Y ZAPANTA

REYES, J.

The purpose of the requirement of proof of the chain of custody is to ensure that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug are preserved, as thus dispel unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the evidence. To be admissible, the prosecution must establish by records or testimony the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit, from the time it came into the possession of the police officers, until it was tested in the laboratory to determine its composition, and all the way to the time it was offered in evidence.[25]

GR No. 196973

2013-07-31

PEOPLE v. RUPER POSING Y ALAYON

PEREZ, J.

As to the charge of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, 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.[42] In the case at hand, the prosecution was able to prove that the accused-appellant was in possession of one (1) plastic sachet of shabu, when he was frisked on the occasion of his arrest. There was also no showing that he had the authority to possess the drugs that was in his person. This Court held in a catena of cases that mere possession of a regulated drug per se constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused absent a satisfactory explanation of such possession the onus probandi is shifted to the accused, to explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi.[43]

GR No. 201845

2013-03-06

PEOPLE v. EDGARDO ADRID Y FLORES

VELASCO JR., J.

Of the same tenor is the holding in People v. Dela Rosa,[32] We underscored the leeway given to the police officers in conducting buy-bust operations: That no test buy was conducted before the arrest is of no moment for there is no rigid or textbook method of conducting buy-bust operations. For the same reason, the absence of evidence of a prior surveillance does not affect the regularity of a buy-bust operation, especially when, like in this case, the buy-bust team members were accompanied to the scene by their informant. The Court will not pretend to establish on a priori basis what detailed acts police authorities might credibly undertake and carry out in their entrapment operations. The selection of appropriate and effective means of entrapping drug traffickers is best left to the discretion of police authorities.

GR No. 192231

2013-02-13

PEOPLE v. JAMES GALIDO Y NOBLE

PEREZ, J.

The chain of custody requirement has long been clarified as needed to ensure that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved,[19] or simply to ensure that the substance seized from the accused is the same substance presented in court.

GR No. 190343

2013-02-06

PEOPLE v. SAIBEN LANGCUA Y DAIMLA

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.[53] As long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending police officers, substantial compliance with the procedure to establish a chain of custody is sanctioned.

GR No. 189817

2012-10-03

PEOPLE v. REYNA BATALUNA LLANITA

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.[69]

GR No. 187736

2012-02-08

PEOPLE v. FLORDELIZA ARRIOLA Y DE LARA

MENDOZA, J.

Furthermore, she failed to show any motive on the part of the arresting officers to implicate her in a crime she claimed she did not commit. On this point, it is good to note the case of People v. Dela Rosa, where 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.[10] In fact, Arriola herself testified that it was the first time she saw SPO4 Taruc and the rest of the arresting team and that she did not know of any motive why SPO4 Taruc or any of the police aides would arrest her.[11] Thus, there could be no reason for SPO4 Taruc or any member of the buy-bust team to begrudge her since they did not know each other. This only goes to show that she was not arrested by reason of any personal vendetta or prejudice on the part of the raiding team as what Arriola was trying to impress. The simple fact was that she was caught in flagrante delicto peddling prohibited drugs.

GR No. 185721

2011-09-28

PEOPLE v. RICKY UNISA Y ISLAN

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.

GR No. 185721

2011-09-28

PEOPLE v. RICKY UNISA Y ISLAN

PEREZ, J.

The function of the chain of custody requirement, therefore, 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.[58]

GR No. 182178

2011-08-15

STEPHEN SY Y TIBAGONG v. PEOPLE

PERALTA, J.

To stress, in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence should be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses, especially when they are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary. Moreover, in the absence of proof of motive to falsely impute such a serious crime against the appellant, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, as well as the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, shall prevail over petitioner's self-serving and uncorroborated denial.[24]

GR No. 192188

2011-04-11

PEOPLE v. ANDREW ROBLE

VELASCO JR., J.

In the crime of sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must be able to successfully prove the following elements: "(1) identities of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor."[34] Similarly, it is essential that the transaction or sale be proved to have actually taken place coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.[35] Corpus delicti means the "actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged."[36]

	GR No. 195850 2015-02-16	PEOPLE v. ABOLA BIO Y PANAYANGAN DEL CASTILLO, J.
To sustain a conviction under Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165, all that is needed for the prosecution to establish are (1) the identity of the buyer, seller, object and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[11] In illegal possession of dangerous drugs, on the other hand, it is necessary to prove that: (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 drug.[12]
	GR No. 200987 2014-08-20	PEOPLE v. RONALDO BAYAN Y NERI PEREZ, J.
Appellant's defense, which is predicated on a bare denial, deserves scant consideration in light of the positive testimonies of the police officers. The defense of frame-up or denial in drug cases requires strong and convincing evidence because of the presumption that the law enforcement agencies acted in the regular performance of their official duties.[18] Bare denials of appellant cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of the three police officers.[19] Moreover, there is no evidence of any improper motive on the part of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation to falsely testify against appellant.
	GR No. 205610 2014-07-30	PEOPLE v. RAMONITO VILLARTA Y RIVERA PEREZ, J.
In every prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like ephedrine in this case, the following elements must be sufficiently proved to sustain a conviction therefor: (1) the identity of the buyer, as well as 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 the dangerous drugs seized as evidence. The commission of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs requires merely the consummation of the selling transaction, which happens the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller. Settled is the rule that as long as the police officer went through the operation as a buyer and his offer was accepted by appellant and the dangerous drugs delivered to the former; the crime is considered consummated by the delivery of the goods.[28]
	GR No. 203028 2014-01-15	PEOPLE v. JOSELITO BERAN Y ZAPANTA REYES, J.
The purpose of the requirement of proof of the chain of custody is to ensure that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug are preserved, as thus dispel unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the evidence. To be admissible, the prosecution must establish by records or testimony the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit, from the time it came into the possession of the police officers, until it was tested in the laboratory to determine its composition, and all the way to the time it was offered in evidence.[25]
	GR No. 196973 2013-07-31	PEOPLE v. RUPER POSING Y ALAYON PEREZ, J.
As to the charge of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, 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.[42] In the case at hand, the prosecution was able to prove that the accused-appellant was in possession of one (1) plastic sachet of shabu, when he was frisked on the occasion of his arrest. There was also no showing that he had the authority to possess the drugs that was in his person. This Court held in a catena of cases that mere possession of a regulated drug per se constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused absent a satisfactory explanation of such possession the onus probandi is shifted to the accused, to explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi.[43]
	GR No. 201845 2013-03-06	PEOPLE v. EDGARDO ADRID Y FLORES VELASCO JR., J.
Of the same tenor is the holding in People v. Dela Rosa,[32] We underscored the leeway given to the police officers in conducting buy-bust operations: That no test buy was conducted before the arrest is of no moment for there is no rigid or textbook method of conducting buy-bust operations. For the same reason, the absence of evidence of a prior surveillance does not affect the regularity of a buy-bust operation, especially when, like in this case, the buy-bust team members were accompanied to the scene by their informant. The Court will not pretend to establish on a priori basis what detailed acts police authorities might credibly undertake and carry out in their entrapment operations. The selection of appropriate and effective means of entrapping drug traffickers is best left to the discretion of police authorities.
	GR No. 192231 2013-02-13	PEOPLE v. JAMES GALIDO Y NOBLE PEREZ, J.
The chain of custody requirement has long been clarified as needed to ensure that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved,[19] or simply to ensure that the substance seized from the accused is the same substance presented in court.
	GR No. 190343 2013-02-06	PEOPLE v. SAIBEN LANGCUA Y DAIMLA 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.[53] As long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending police officers, substantial compliance with the procedure to establish a chain of custody is sanctioned.
	GR No. 189817 2012-10-03	PEOPLE v. REYNA BATALUNA LLANITA 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.[69]
	GR No. 187736 2012-02-08	PEOPLE v. FLORDELIZA ARRIOLA Y DE LARA MENDOZA, J.
Furthermore, she failed to show any motive on the part of the arresting officers to implicate her in a crime she claimed she did not commit. On this point, it is good to note the case of People v. Dela Rosa, where 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.[10] In fact, Arriola herself testified that it was the first time she saw SPO4 Taruc and the rest of the arresting team and that she did not know of any motive why SPO4 Taruc or any of the police aides would arrest her.[11] Thus, there could be no reason for SPO4 Taruc or any member of the buy-bust team to begrudge her since they did not know each other. This only goes to show that she was not arrested by reason of any personal vendetta or prejudice on the part of the raiding team as what Arriola was trying to impress. The simple fact was that she was caught in flagrante delicto peddling prohibited drugs.
	GR No. 185721 2011-09-28	PEOPLE v. RICKY UNISA Y ISLAN 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.
	GR No. 185721 2011-09-28	PEOPLE v. RICKY UNISA Y ISLAN PEREZ, J.
The function of the chain of custody requirement, therefore, 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.[58]
	GR No. 182178 2011-08-15	STEPHEN SY Y TIBAGONG v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
To stress, in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence should be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses, especially when they are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary. Moreover, in the absence of proof of motive to falsely impute such a serious crime against the appellant, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, as well as the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, shall prevail over petitioner's self-serving and uncorroborated denial.[24]
	GR No. 192188 2011-04-11	PEOPLE v. ANDREW ROBLE VELASCO JR., J.
In the crime of sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must be able to successfully prove the following elements: "(1) identities of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor."[34] Similarly, it is essential that the transaction or sale be proved to have actually taken place coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.[35] Corpus delicti means the "actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged."[36]

PEOPLE v. MARK LESTER DELA ROSA Y SUELLO