Lawyerly

GR No. 176269

2013-11-13

BRION, J.

We are not persuaded that this inconsistency is sufficient to taint the prosecution's case to the point that it should fail. The rule is that inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses, when referring only to minor details and collateral matters, do not affect either the substance of their declaration, their veracity, or the weight of their testimony. Such minor inconsistencies even enhance their veracity as the variances erase any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony.[31] Besides, P/Inspector Arsenal was on a separate vehicle, at a some distance from the actual buy-bust transaction. It is possible that he might have been mixed up and confused on who was carrying the box containing shabu. But this uncertainty is a minor matter in the context of what had been sufficiently proven as a whole. What is material to consider is that the transacting parties were there, together with the red box that contained the shabu; the order by which the box was handled is not all that important and material given that it passed from the appellants and ultimately to PO3 Pastrana. In other words, the illegal transaction had indeed taken place. Significantly, PO3 Pastrana, the poseur-buyer and the one who directly received the drugs, was unwavering in his testimony that it was Lai who was carrying the box: Q: After you were introduced by your confidential agent, what transpired next? A: He went back to his car and he whispered something to his lady companion and then came back to me. He insisted that he be shown the casino chips. And after I showed them to him, he went back to his car. Q: After he return[ed] to his car, what happened next? A: A woman alighted from the car and the two of them approached me. The lady was carrying a carton and she was introduced to me by William Sy mentioning her name as Yu Yuk Lai. After the introduction, Yu Yuk Lai handed the carton she was carrying to William Sy who in turn handed it to me saying "Pare, iyan na iyong order mong bato, 3 kilo iyan." Q: When that carton box was handed to you by William Sy, what did you do? A: I examined the contents of the carton to ascertain if it is shabu. Then I placed the carton inside our car and I got the 4 casino chips and gave them to William Sy. After that, I executed the pre-arranged signal and I introduced myself as Narcom Agent. At this point, William Sy tried to escape but I got hold of him. (interrupted). x x x x Q: During the last hearing, you identified the carton box containing 3 plastic bags containing shabu, could you tell us what is the relation of that box that you mentioned and the shabu inside it to that you identified during the last hearing? A: Those were the items handed to me by William Sy during the buy-bust operation.[32]

GR No. 186131

2011-12-14

PEOPLE v. BENJAMIN AMANSEC Y DOÑA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

This point need not be belabored as this Court, has time and again, held that "the presentation of an informant in an illegal drugs case is not essential for the conviction nor is it indispensable for a successful prosecution because his testimony would be merely corroborative and cumulative."[30] If Amansec felt that the prosecution did not present the informant because he would testify against it, then Amansec himself should have called him to the stand to testify for the defense.[31] The informant's testimony is not needed if the sale of the illegal drug has been adequately proven by the prosecution.[32] In People v. Ho Chua,[33] we said: The presentation of an informant is not a requisite in the prosecution of drug cases. In People v. Nicolas, the Court ruled that "[p]olice authorities rarely, if ever, remove the cloak of confidentiality with which they surround their poseur-buyers and informers since their usefulness will be over the moment they are presented in court. Moreover, drug dealers do not look kindly upon squealers and informants. It is understandable why, as much as permitted, their identities are kept secret." In any event, the testimony of the informant would be merely corroborative.[34]

GR No. 174097

2010-07-21

PEOPLE v. SONNY PADUA Y REYES

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

PO2 Aguilar straightforwardly narrated the circumstances leading to the consummation of the sale of illegal drugs, the possession of four plastic sachets of shabu and the arrest of accused-appellant. Credence was properly accorded to the testimony of prosecution witness PO2 Aguilar who is a law enforcer. The testimony of the police officers carried with it the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions. Law enforcers are presumed to have performed their duties regularly in the absence of evidence to the contrary. When police officers have no motive for testifying falsely against the accused, courts are inclined to uphold the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties[32] and no evidence whatsoever was presented that would suggest any improper motive on the part of the police enforcers. This Court accords great respect to and treats with finality the findings of the trial court on the matter of credibility of witnesses, absent any palpable error or arbitrariness in its findings.

GR No. 170137

2009-08-27

PEOPLE v. RANDY MAGBANUA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

The evidence for the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements necessary to successfully prosecute a case for illegal possession of a prohibited drug, namely, (a) the accused-appellants were in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or a regulated drug, (b) such possession was not authorized by law, and (c) the accused-appellants freely and consciously possessed said drug.[18] Section 8, Article II of R.A. No. 6425, as amended, provides: SEC. 8. Possession or Use of Prohibited Drugs. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall possess or use any prohibited drug subject to provisions of Section 20 hereof.

GR No. 179700

2009-06-22

GWYN QUINICOT Y CURATIVO v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Petitioner was likewise charged under Section 16 of Republic Act No. 6425 with possession of two sachets (2.1832 grams and 2.6355 grams) of shabu with a total weight of 4.8187 grams. In illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the elements are: (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 possesses the said drug.[49] All these elements have been established.

GR No. 180511

2008-07-28

PEOPLE v. MARILYN NAQUITA Y CIBULO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

A She was still holding the money, your Honor.[56] Appellant was likewise indicted for possession of two sachets of shabu respectively weighing 1.84 grams and 2.06 grams for a total weight of 3.90 grams. In illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the elements 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.[57] All these elements have been established. PO1 Llanderal testified: Q- You started the buy bust operation at about 8:00 o'clock in the evening of December 17, 2003?

GR NO. 175928

2007-08-31

PEOPLE v. ALVIN PRINGAS Y PANGANIBAN

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Appellant was, likewise, charged with possession of three sachets of shabu with a total weight of 0.29 gram. In illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the elements 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.[55] All these elements have been established.

GR NO. 159751

2006-12-06

GAUDENCIO E. FERNANDO v. CA

QUISUMBING, J.

Petitioner Estorninos is likewise liable as the store attendant actively engaged in selling and exhibiting the obscene materials. Prosecution witness Police Inspector Tababan, who led the PNP-CIDG NCR that conducted the search, identified him as the store attendant upon whom the search warrant was served.[37] Tababan had no motive for testifying falsely against Estorninos and we uphold the presumption of regularity in the performance of his duties. Lastly, this Court accords great respect to and treats with finality the findings of the trial court on the matter of credibility of witnesses, absent any palpable error or arbitrariness in their findings.[38] In our view, no reversible error was committed by the appellate court as well as the trial court in finding the herein petitioners guilty as charged.

GR No. 143793

2004-02-17

PEOPLE v. LI YIN CHU

CARPIO, J.

The police confiscated almost ten kilos of shabu from appellant. Considering that no aggravating or mitigating circumstance accompanied the commission of the offenses, the trial court correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua. In view of the large quantity of shabu confiscated, we find no reason to disturb the trial court's imposition of a fine of P5 million.[41]

GR Nos. 140514-15

2003-09-30

PEOPLE v. JUNE IGNAS Y SANGGINO

QUISUMBING, J.

We find merit in the appellant's contentions. It is not enough that the special aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm be alleged in the information, the matter must be proven with the same quantum of proof as the killing itself. Thus, the prosecution must prove: (1) the existence of the subject firearm; and (2) the fact that the accused who owned or possessed it does not have the corresponding license or permit to own or possess the same.[108] The records do not show that the prosecution presented any evidence to prove that appellant is not a duly licensed holder of a caliber .38 firearm. The prosecution failed to offer in evidence a certification from the Philippine National Police Firearms and Explosives Division to show that appellant had no permit or license to own or possess a .38 caliber handgun. Nor did it present the responsible police officer on the matter of licensing as a prosecution witness. Absent the proper evidentiary proof, this Court cannot validly declare that the special aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm was satisfactorily established by the prosecution. Hence such special circumstance cannot be considered for purposes of imposing the penalty in its maximum period.

GR No. 144317

2003-08-05

PEOPLE v. MICHAEL MONTE Y ABDUL

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

However, we note that the trial court did not impose a fine. The imposition of fine is mandatory in cases of conviction of unauthorized sale of regulated drugs. Courts may fix any amount within the limits established by law and; in fixing the amount in each case, attention shall be given, not only to the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, but more particularly to the wealth or means of the culprit.[30] As stated above, the law prescribes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos if the shabu involved weighs 200 grams or more. Considering that the amount of shabu sold in this case weighed 262.272 grams, we deem the amount of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) reasonable.[31]

GR Nos. 131872-73

2000-02-17

PEOPLE v. CHEN TIZ CHANG

PANGANIBAN, J.

On the other hand, in a prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, it must be shown that (1) the accused is in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or a regulated drug, (2) such possession is not authorized by law and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.[24]

	GR No. 176269 2013-11-13	PEOPLE v. KENNETH MONCEDA Y SY BRION, J.
We are not persuaded that this inconsistency is sufficient to taint the prosecution's case to the point that it should fail. The rule is that inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses, when referring only to minor details and collateral matters, do not affect either the substance of their declaration, their veracity, or the weight of their testimony. Such minor inconsistencies even enhance their veracity as the variances erase any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony.[31] Besides, P/Inspector Arsenal was on a separate vehicle, at a some distance from the actual buy-bust transaction. It is possible that he might have been mixed up and confused on who was carrying the box containing shabu. But this uncertainty is a minor matter in the context of what had been sufficiently proven as a whole. What is material to consider is that the transacting parties were there, together with the red box that contained the shabu; the order by which the box was handled is not all that important and material given that it passed from the appellants and ultimately to PO3 Pastrana. In other words, the illegal transaction had indeed taken place. Significantly, PO3 Pastrana, the poseur-buyer and the one who directly received the drugs, was unwavering in his testimony that it was Lai who was carrying the box: Q: After you were introduced by your confidential agent, what transpired next? A: He went back to his car and he whispered something to his lady companion and then came back to me. He insisted that he be shown the casino chips. And after I showed them to him, he went back to his car. Q: After he return[ed] to his car, what happened next? A: A woman alighted from the car and the two of them approached me. The lady was carrying a carton and she was introduced to me by William Sy mentioning her name as Yu Yuk Lai. After the introduction, Yu Yuk Lai handed the carton she was carrying to William Sy who in turn handed it to me saying "Pare, iyan na iyong order mong bato, 3 kilo iyan." Q: When that carton box was handed to you by William Sy, what did you do? A: I examined the contents of the carton to ascertain if it is shabu. Then I placed the carton inside our car and I got the 4 casino chips and gave them to William Sy. After that, I executed the pre-arranged signal and I introduced myself as Narcom Agent. At this point, William Sy tried to escape but I got hold of him. (interrupted). x x x x Q: During the last hearing, you identified the carton box containing 3 plastic bags containing shabu, could you tell us what is the relation of that box that you mentioned and the shabu inside it to that you identified during the last hearing? A: Those were the items handed to me by William Sy during the buy-bust operation.[32]
	GR No. 186131 2011-12-14	PEOPLE v. BENJAMIN AMANSEC Y DOÑA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
This point need not be belabored as this Court, has time and again, held that "the presentation of an informant in an illegal drugs case is not essential for the conviction nor is it indispensable for a successful prosecution because his testimony would be merely corroborative and cumulative."[30] If Amansec felt that the prosecution did not present the informant because he would testify against it, then Amansec himself should have called him to the stand to testify for the defense.[31] The informant's testimony is not needed if the sale of the illegal drug has been adequately proven by the prosecution.[32] In People v. Ho Chua,[33] we said: The presentation of an informant is not a requisite in the prosecution of drug cases. In People v. Nicolas, the Court ruled that "[p]olice authorities rarely, if ever, remove the cloak of confidentiality with which they surround their poseur-buyers and informers since their usefulness will be over the moment they are presented in court. Moreover, drug dealers do not look kindly upon squealers and informants. It is understandable why, as much as permitted, their identities are kept secret." In any event, the testimony of the informant would be merely corroborative.[34]
	GR No. 174097 2010-07-21	PEOPLE v. SONNY PADUA Y REYES LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
PO2 Aguilar straightforwardly narrated the circumstances leading to the consummation of the sale of illegal drugs, the possession of four plastic sachets of shabu and the arrest of accused-appellant. Credence was properly accorded to the testimony of prosecution witness PO2 Aguilar who is a law enforcer. The testimony of the police officers carried with it the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions. Law enforcers are presumed to have performed their duties regularly in the absence of evidence to the contrary. When police officers have no motive for testifying falsely against the accused, courts are inclined to uphold the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties[32] and no evidence whatsoever was presented that would suggest any improper motive on the part of the police enforcers. This Court accords great respect to and treats with finality the findings of the trial court on the matter of credibility of witnesses, absent any palpable error or arbitrariness in its findings.
	GR No. 170137 2009-08-27	PEOPLE v. RANDY MAGBANUA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The evidence for the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements necessary to successfully prosecute a case for illegal possession of a prohibited drug, namely, (a) the accused-appellants were in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or a regulated drug, (b) such possession was not authorized by law, and (c) the accused-appellants freely and consciously possessed said drug.[18] Section 8, Article II of R.A. No. 6425, as amended, provides: SEC. 8. Possession or Use of Prohibited Drugs. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall possess or use any prohibited drug subject to provisions of Section 20 hereof.
	GR No. 179700 2009-06-22	GWYN QUINICOT Y CURATIVO v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Petitioner was likewise charged under Section 16 of Republic Act No. 6425 with possession of two sachets (2.1832 grams and 2.6355 grams) of shabu with a total weight of 4.8187 grams. In illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the elements are: (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 possesses the said drug.[49] All these elements have been established.
	GR No. 180511 2008-07-28	PEOPLE v. MARILYN NAQUITA Y CIBULO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
A She was still holding the money, your Honor.[56] Appellant was likewise indicted for possession of two sachets of shabu respectively weighing 1.84 grams and 2.06 grams for a total weight of 3.90 grams. In illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the elements 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.[57] All these elements have been established. PO1 Llanderal testified: Q- You started the buy bust operation at about 8:00 o'clock in the evening of December 17, 2003?
	GR NO. 175928 2007-08-31	PEOPLE v. ALVIN PRINGAS Y PANGANIBAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Appellant was, likewise, charged with possession of three sachets of shabu with a total weight of 0.29 gram. In illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the elements 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.[55] All these elements have been established.
	GR NO. 159751 2006-12-06	GAUDENCIO E. FERNANDO v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
Petitioner Estorninos is likewise liable as the store attendant actively engaged in selling and exhibiting the obscene materials. Prosecution witness Police Inspector Tababan, who led the PNP-CIDG NCR that conducted the search, identified him as the store attendant upon whom the search warrant was served.[37] Tababan had no motive for testifying falsely against Estorninos and we uphold the presumption of regularity in the performance of his duties. Lastly, this Court accords great respect to and treats with finality the findings of the trial court on the matter of credibility of witnesses, absent any palpable error or arbitrariness in their findings.[38] In our view, no reversible error was committed by the appellate court as well as the trial court in finding the herein petitioners guilty as charged.
	GR No. 143793 2004-02-17	PEOPLE v. LI YIN CHU CARPIO, J.
The police confiscated almost ten kilos of shabu from appellant. Considering that no aggravating or mitigating circumstance accompanied the commission of the offenses, the trial court correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua. In view of the large quantity of shabu confiscated, we find no reason to disturb the trial court's imposition of a fine of P5 million.[41]
	GR Nos. 140514-15 2003-09-30	PEOPLE v. JUNE IGNAS Y SANGGINO QUISUMBING, J.
We find merit in the appellant's contentions. It is not enough that the special aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm be alleged in the information, the matter must be proven with the same quantum of proof as the killing itself. Thus, the prosecution must prove: (1) the existence of the subject firearm; and (2) the fact that the accused who owned or possessed it does not have the corresponding license or permit to own or possess the same.[108] The records do not show that the prosecution presented any evidence to prove that appellant is not a duly licensed holder of a caliber .38 firearm. The prosecution failed to offer in evidence a certification from the Philippine National Police Firearms and Explosives Division to show that appellant had no permit or license to own or possess a .38 caliber handgun. Nor did it present the responsible police officer on the matter of licensing as a prosecution witness. Absent the proper evidentiary proof, this Court cannot validly declare that the special aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm was satisfactorily established by the prosecution. Hence such special circumstance cannot be considered for purposes of imposing the penalty in its maximum period.
	GR No. 144317 2003-08-05	PEOPLE v. MICHAEL MONTE Y ABDUL YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
However, we note that the trial court did not impose a fine. The imposition of fine is mandatory in cases of conviction of unauthorized sale of regulated drugs. Courts may fix any amount within the limits established by law and; in fixing the amount in each case, attention shall be given, not only to the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, but more particularly to the wealth or means of the culprit.[30] As stated above, the law prescribes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos if the shabu involved weighs 200 grams or more. Considering that the amount of shabu sold in this case weighed 262.272 grams, we deem the amount of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) reasonable.[31]
	GR Nos. 131872-73 2000-02-17	PEOPLE v. CHEN TIZ CHANG PANGANIBAN, J.
On the other hand, in a prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, it must be shown that (1) the accused is in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or a regulated drug, (2) such possession is not authorized by law and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.[24]

PEOPLE v. ALLAN K. C. KHOR