Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RUEL AMPATUAN 'ALIAS RUEL v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 190180 2013-11-27	PEOPLE v. MARISSA CASTILLO Y ALIGNAY LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Further, the testimonies of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust are generally accorded full faith and credit, in view of the presumption of regularity in the performance of public duties. Hence, when lined against an unsubstantiated denial or claim of frame-up, the testimony of the officers who caught the accused red-handed is given more weight and usually prevails. In order to overcome the presumption of regularity, jurisprudence teaches us that there must be clear and convincing evidence that the police officers did not properly perform their duties or that they were prompted with ill-motive.[21] (Citations omitted.)
	GR No. 188310 2013-06-13	PEOPLE v. MERCIDITA T. RESURRECCION LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The Court similarly views accused-appellant's defenses of denial and frame-up very doubtful. The testimonies of police officers who conducted the buy-bust are generally accorded full faith and credit, in view of the presumption of regularity in the performance of public duties. Hence, when lined against an unsubstantiated denial or claim of frame-up, the testimony of the officers who caught the accused red-handed is given more weight and usually prevails. In order to overcome the presumption of regularity, there must be clear and convincing evidence that the police officers did not properly perform their duties or that they were prompted with ill motive,[28] none of which exists in this case.
	GR No. 189351 2013-04-10	PEOPLE v. LOLITA QUESIDO Y BADARANG LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
For her defense, appellant could only present a self-serving and unsubstantiated denial or claim of frame-up. In Ampatuan v. People,[20] we viewed this flimsy excuse with disfavor and held: Further, the testimonies of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust are generally accorded full faith and credit, in view of the presumption of regularity in the performance of public duties. Hence, when lined against an unsubstantiated denial or claim of frame-up, the testimony of the officers who caught the accused red-handed is given more weight and usually prevails. In order to overcome the presumption of regularity, jurisprudence teaches us that there must be clear and convincing evidence that the police officers did not properly perform their duties or that they were prompted with ill-motive. (Citations omitted.)
	GR No. 198820 2012-12-10	PEOPLE v. RENATO LAPASARAN Y MEDINILLA a.k.a. 'MAO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
From the foregoing, it may be gleaned that to establish the chain of custody in a buy-bust operation is as follows: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.[16]
	GR No. 186387 2011-08-31	PEOPLE v. JUAN MENDOZA Y VICENTE MENDOZA, J.
In the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation, the following links must be established: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.[18]