This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2011-06-06 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| [B]y the very nature of anti-narcotic operations, the need for entrapment procedures, the use of shady characters as informants, the ease with which sticks of marijuana or grams of heroin can be planted in the pockets or hands of unsuspecting provincial hicks, and the secrecy that inevitably shrouds all drug deals, the possibility of abuse is great. Thus, the courts have been exhorted to be extra vigilant in trying drug cases lest an innocent person is made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses.[17] (underscoring supplied) | |||||
|
2009-12-16 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Moreover, for the successful prosecution of the illegal sale of shabu, only the following elements are essential: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and its payment.[11] What is material is proof that the sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in evidence of the seized item, as part of the corpus delicti. The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction. | |||||
|
2009-09-03 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| The Court reiterates that on account of the built-in danger of abuse that a buy-bust operation carries, it is governed by specific procedures on the seizure and custody of drugs, separately from the general law procedures geared to ensure that the rights of persons under criminal investigation[22] and of the accused facing a criminal charge[23] are safeguarded. In People v. Tan,[24] the Court expressed this concern as it recognized that "by the very nature of anti-narcotics operations, the need for entrapment procedures, the use of shady characters as informants, the ease with which sticks of marijuana or grams of heroin can be planted in the pockets or hands of unsuspecting provincial hicks, and the secrecy that inevitably shrouds all drug deals, the possibility of abuse is great." Thus, it exhorted courts to be extra vigilant in trying drug cases lest an innocent person is made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses. | |||||
|
2009-02-25 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| A buy-bust operation gave rise to the present case. While this kind of operation has been proven to be an effective way to flush out illegal transactions that are otherwise conducted covertly and in secrecy,[21] a buy-bust operation has a significant downside that has not escaped the attention of the framers of the law. It is susceptible to police abuse, the most notorious of which is its use as a tool for extortion. In People v. Tan,[22] this Court itself recognized that "by the very nature of anti-narcotics operations, the need for entrapment procedures, the use of shady characters as informants, the ease with which sticks of marijuana or grams of heroin can be planted in pockets of or hands of unsuspecting provincial hicks, and the secrecy that inevitably shrouds all drug deals, the possibility of abuse is great. Thus, courts have been exhorted to be extra vigilant in trying drug cases lest an innocent person is made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses." Accordingly, specific procedures relating to the seizure and custody of drugs have been laid down in the law (R.A. No. 9165) for the police to strictly follow. The prosecution must adduce evidence that these procedures have been followed in proving the elements of the defined offense. | |||||
|
2008-10-15 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment employed by peace officers to apprehend prohibited drug law violators in the act of committing a drug-related offense.[20] Because of the built-in danger for abuse that a buy-bust operation carries, it is governed by specific procedures on the seizure and custody of drugs, separately from the general law procedures geared to ensure that the rights of people under criminal investigation[21] and of the accused facing a criminal charge[22] are safeguarded. We expressed this concern in People v. Tan,[23] when we recognized that "by the very nature of anti-narcotic operations, the need for entrapment procedures, the use of shady characters as informants, the ease with which sticks of marijuana or grams of heroin can be planted in the pockets or hands of unsuspecting provincial hicks, and the secrecy that inevitably shrouds all drug deals, the possibility of abuse is great. Thus, the courts have been exhorted to be extra vigilant in trying drug cases lest an innocent person is made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses." | |||||
|
2003-04-24 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| It may be noted that the testimony given for the prosecution and that of the defense are diametrically opposed to each other. In resolving such conflict, dealing as it does with the credibility of the witnesses, the usual rule is for this Court to respect the findings of the trial court as it was in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and having observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[23] However, the rule does admit of exceptions, such as when the evaluation was reached arbitrarily or when the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied certain facts or circumstances of such weight and substance as to affect the very results of the case.[24] The factual findings of the trial court may be reversed if by the evidence on record or lack of it, it appears that the trial court erred.[25] | |||||
|
2002-05-29 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The testimony given by the witnesses for the prosecution and that of the defense are diametrically opposed to each other. In resolving such conflict, which involves the credibility of witnesses, the usual rule is for this Court to respect the findings of the trial court considering that it is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and having observed their deportment and manner of testifying during trial.[22] Nonetheless, this rule is circumscribed by well-established exceptions.[23] Thus, the factual findings of the trial court may be reversed if by the evidence or lack of it, it appears that the trial court erred.[24] | |||||
|
2002-01-24 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| A: I was arrested, sir. Q: I want to inform you Mr. Witness that the date of your arrest is January, 1997. Now, my question is whether police officer (sic) went to your place sometime in September, 1993 in order to serve this warrant of arrest to you? ATTY. PELEO: Witness already answered, your honor. COURT: That police officer went there but they were not arrested. A: I was not arrested in September 1993, sir. Q: Do you recall the police officer who went in your place during that time? A: Pol, sir."[45] There is a disparity among these circumstances: (1) that the warrants of arrest were returned unserved since the appellants could not be found in their given address; (2) that appellants did not leave their place of residence anytime prior to their arrest in January 1997; and (3) that a policeman went to appellants' place in September 1993 without arresting any of them, which the evidence for the prosecution cannot and did not reconcile. The mere fact that the warrants of arrest were returned unserved does not automatically mean that appellants went into hiding. Neither can the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the police officers be considered in this case. The presumption of innocence is not a mere procedural tool of the law; it is not overcome by the presumption of regularity.[46] | |||||