Lawyerly

GR No. 179936

2012-04-11

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

Trial courts have the distinct advantage of observing the demeanor and conduct of witnesses during trial. Hence, their factual findings are accorded great weight, absent any showing as in this case, that certain facts of relevance and substance bearing on the elements of the crime have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied.[29] More, the Court takes note that the RTC, as upheld by the CA, found that the testimonies of prosecution witnesses were unequivocal, definite and straightforward. We note moreover that the testimony of PO2 Joseph Bayot corroborated that of PO1 Bibit. Their testimonies were consistent in material respects with each other and with physical evidence.

GR No. 185166

2011-01-26

PEOPLE v. MARK LESTER DELA ROSA Y SUELLO

PEREZ, J.

In People v. Nicolas,[42] this Court held that the employment of a pre-arranged signal, or the lack of it, is not indispensable in a buy-bust operation. What determines if there was, indeed, a sale of dangerous drugs is proof of the concurrence of all the elements of the offense. With more reason that a mere inconsistency thereof does not and will not affect the credibility of the prosecution witness so long as all the elements of the offense have been established with certainty.

GR No. 186527

2010-06-29

PEOPLE v. ROY PAMPILLONA Y REBADULLA

MENDOZA, J.

The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[7] What is material to the prosecution of 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.[8]

GR No. 187070

2010-02-24

PEOPLE v. ROLANDO TAMAYO Y TENA

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

We have held that trial courts have the distinct advantage of observing the demeanor and conduct of witnesses during trial. Hence, their factual findings are accorded great weight, absent any showing that certain facts of relevance and substance bearing on the elements of the crime have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied.[28]

GR No. 179700

2009-06-22

GWYN QUINICOT Y CURATIVO v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Petitioner was charged with violations of Sections 15 and 16 of Republic Act No. 6425. He was charged with violation of Section 15 for selling 0.119 gram of shabu. The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are: (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[45] What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.[46]

GR No. 185278

2009-03-13

PEOPLE v. ROLANDO LLAMADO Y CRUZ

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Moreover, the failure on the part of the police officers to take photographs and make an inventory of the drugs seized from the appellant was not fatal because the prosecution was able to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the said illegal drugs. What determines if there was, indeed, a sale of dangerous drugs is proof of the concurrence of all the elements of the offense. The prosecution satisfactorily proved the illegal sale of dangerous drugs and presented in court evidence of corpus delicti.[12] PO2 Brubio was able to put the necessary markings on the sachet of shabu bought from appellant, for identification purposes, immediately after the consummation of the drug sale. He personally delivered the same specimen to the PNP Crime Laboratory for chemical analysis on the same day the entrapment was conducted. Lastly, PO2 Brubio was able to identify the said markings in court.

GR No. 182419

2009-02-10

PEOPLE v. WILFREDO ENCILA Y SUNGA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Prosecutions involving illegal drugs largely depend on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation.[29] In the process of converting into written form the statements of living human beings, not only fine nuances but a world of meaning apparent to the judge present, watching and listening, may escape the reader of the translated words. Considering that this Court has access only to the cold and impersonal records of the proceedings, it generally relies upon the assessment of the trial court, which had the distinct advantage of observing the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses during trial.[30] Hence, factual findings of the trial courts are accorded respect, absent any showing that certain facts of weight and substance bearing on the elements of the crime have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied. We have no reason to deviate from this rule.

GR No. 176151

2009-01-30

PEOPLE v. LOURDERICO ORTIZ DARISAN

CORONA, J.

Trial courts have the distinct advantage of observing the demeanor and conduct of witnesses during trial. Hence, their factual findings are accorded great weight, absent any showing that certain facts of relevance and substance bearing on the elements of the crime have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied.[10] No cogent reason exists for us to deviate from this rule.

GR No. 181441

2008-11-14

PEOPLE v. LARRY LOPEZ

CARPIO, J.

First, the alleged inconsistencies in the testimony of PO1 Miranda refer to trivial or minor matters, which do not impair the essential integrity of the prosecution's evidence as a whole or reflect on the witness' honesty.[8] Inconsistencies on the existence of a pre-arranged signal and the markings on the buy-bust money pertain to peripheral matters and do not refer to the actual buy-bust operation itself that crucial moment when the appellant was caught selling shabu which might warrant a reversal of appellant's conviction.[9] Further, the Court sustains the trial court in giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses because the trial court is in a better position to evaluate the witnesses' deportment during the trial.[10] Besides, the employment of a pre-arranged signal, or the lack of it, is not indispensable in a buy-bust operation.[11] Also, the non-presentation of the buy-bust money is not fatal to the successful prosecution of a drug case.[12]

GR No. 181599

2008-08-20

PEOPLE v. SALVADOR DUMLAO Y AGLIAM

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

Moreover, the non-presentation of pre-operation orders and post operation report is not fatal to the cause of the prosecution, because they are not indispensable in a buy-bust operation. What determines if there was, indeed, a sale of dangerous drugs is proof of the concurrence of all the elements of the offense; to wit: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor, which the prosecution has satisfactorily established. The prosecution satisfactorily proved the illegal sale of dangerous drugs and presented in court evidence of corpus delicti.[13]

GR No. 180511

2008-07-28

PEOPLE v. MARILYN NAQUITA Y CIBULO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[54] 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.[55]

GR No. 176735

2008-06-26

PEOPLE v. JERRY SANTOS Y MACOL

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Sec. 98. Limited Applicability of the Revised Penal Code. Notwithstanding any law, rule or regulation to the contrary, the provisions of the Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815), as amended, shall not apply to the provisions of this Act, except in the case of minor offenders. Where the offender is a minor, the penalty for acts punishable by life imprisonment to death provided herein shall be reclusion perpetua to death. Thus, in determining the imposable penalty, Article 63(2) of the Revised Penal Code shall not be applied. Under this article, in all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the lesser penalty shall be applied when there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances.[77] Since Section 98 of the Drugs Law contains the word "shall," the non-applicability of the Revised Penal Code provisions is mandatory, subject to exception only in case the offender is a minor.[78]

GR No. 179940

2008-04-23

PEOPLE v. NORBERTO DEL MONTE Y GAPAY

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[24] 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.[25]

GR NO. 177569

2007-11-28

PEOPLE v. RENATO DE GUZMAN Y MIRANDA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

What determines if there was, indeed, sale of dangerous drugs is proof of the concurrence of all the elements of the offense. A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment which has repeatedly been accepted to be a valid means of arresting violators of the Dangerous Drugs Law. The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the 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.[26]

GR NO. 175928

2007-08-31

PEOPLE v. ALVIN PRINGAS Y PANGANIBAN

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Appellant was charged with violations of Sections 5, 11 and 12 of Republic Act No. 9165. Appellant was charged with violation of Section 5 for selling 0.03 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[47] What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.[48]

GR NO. 175222

2007-07-27

PEOPLE v. RAMON QUIAOIT

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Finally, Quiaoit's defense of denial is a weak defense. Unless substantiated by clear and convincing proof, it is self-serving and undeserving of any weight in law (see People v. Hampton, 395 SCRA 156). It cannot prevail over the positive identification by PO1 Baquiran that it was Quiaoit who sold to him a sachet of "shabu" in the early morning of April 13, 2004 at Golden Miles Beerhouse.[24] Neither can we give credence to appellant's contention that the existence of a valid buy-bust operation was betrayed by the inadequate training of the members of the team for, it must be stated here, there is no textbook method of conducting buy-bust operations. The Court has left to the discretion of police authorities the selection of effective means to apprehend drug dealers.[25]

	GR No. 179936 2012-04-11	PEOPLE v. JAMAD ABEDIN Y JANDAL VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Trial courts have the distinct advantage of observing the demeanor and conduct of witnesses during trial. Hence, their factual findings are accorded great weight, absent any showing as in this case, that certain facts of relevance and substance bearing on the elements of the crime have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied.[29] More, the Court takes note that the RTC, as upheld by the CA, found that the testimonies of prosecution witnesses were unequivocal, definite and straightforward. We note moreover that the testimony of PO2 Joseph Bayot corroborated that of PO1 Bibit. Their testimonies were consistent in material respects with each other and with physical evidence.
	GR No. 185166 2011-01-26	PEOPLE v. MARK LESTER DELA ROSA Y SUELLO PEREZ, J.
In People v. Nicolas,[42] this Court held that the employment of a pre-arranged signal, or the lack of it, is not indispensable in a buy-bust operation. What determines if there was, indeed, a sale of dangerous drugs is proof of the concurrence of all the elements of the offense. With more reason that a mere inconsistency thereof does not and will not affect the credibility of the prosecution witness so long as all the elements of the offense have been established with certainty.
	GR No. 186527 2010-06-29	PEOPLE v. ROY PAMPILLONA Y REBADULLA MENDOZA, J.
The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[7] What is material to the prosecution of 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.[8]
	GR No. 187070 2010-02-24	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO TAMAYO Y TENA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
We have held that trial courts have the distinct advantage of observing the demeanor and conduct of witnesses during trial. Hence, their factual findings are accorded great weight, absent any showing that certain facts of relevance and substance bearing on the elements of the crime have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied.[28]
	GR No. 179700 2009-06-22	GWYN QUINICOT Y CURATIVO v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Petitioner was charged with violations of Sections 15 and 16 of Republic Act No. 6425. He was charged with violation of Section 15 for selling 0.119 gram of shabu. The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are: (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[45] What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.[46]
	GR No. 185278 2009-03-13	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO LLAMADO Y CRUZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Moreover, the failure on the part of the police officers to take photographs and make an inventory of the drugs seized from the appellant was not fatal because the prosecution was able to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the said illegal drugs. What determines if there was, indeed, a sale of dangerous drugs is proof of the concurrence of all the elements of the offense. The prosecution satisfactorily proved the illegal sale of dangerous drugs and presented in court evidence of corpus delicti.[12] PO2 Brubio was able to put the necessary markings on the sachet of shabu bought from appellant, for identification purposes, immediately after the consummation of the drug sale. He personally delivered the same specimen to the PNP Crime Laboratory for chemical analysis on the same day the entrapment was conducted. Lastly, PO2 Brubio was able to identify the said markings in court.
	GR No. 182419 2009-02-10	PEOPLE v. WILFREDO ENCILA Y SUNGA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Prosecutions involving illegal drugs largely depend on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation.[29] In the process of converting into written form the statements of living human beings, not only fine nuances but a world of meaning apparent to the judge present, watching and listening, may escape the reader of the translated words. Considering that this Court has access only to the cold and impersonal records of the proceedings, it generally relies upon the assessment of the trial court, which had the distinct advantage of observing the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses during trial.[30] Hence, factual findings of the trial courts are accorded respect, absent any showing that certain facts of weight and substance bearing on the elements of the crime have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied. We have no reason to deviate from this rule.
	GR No. 176151 2009-01-30	PEOPLE v. LOURDERICO ORTIZ DARISAN CORONA, J.
Trial courts have the distinct advantage of observing the demeanor and conduct of witnesses during trial. Hence, their factual findings are accorded great weight, absent any showing that certain facts of relevance and substance bearing on the elements of the crime have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied.[10] No cogent reason exists for us to deviate from this rule.
	GR No. 181441 2008-11-14	PEOPLE v. LARRY LOPEZ CARPIO, J.
First, the alleged inconsistencies in the testimony of PO1 Miranda refer to trivial or minor matters, which do not impair the essential integrity of the prosecution's evidence as a whole or reflect on the witness' honesty.[8] Inconsistencies on the existence of a pre-arranged signal and the markings on the buy-bust money pertain to peripheral matters and do not refer to the actual buy-bust operation itself that crucial moment when the appellant was caught selling shabu which might warrant a reversal of appellant's conviction.[9] Further, the Court sustains the trial court in giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses because the trial court is in a better position to evaluate the witnesses' deportment during the trial.[10] Besides, the employment of a pre-arranged signal, or the lack of it, is not indispensable in a buy-bust operation.[11] Also, the non-presentation of the buy-bust money is not fatal to the successful prosecution of a drug case.[12]
	GR No. 181599 2008-08-20	PEOPLE v. SALVADOR DUMLAO Y AGLIAM YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Moreover, the non-presentation of pre-operation orders and post operation report is not fatal to the cause of the prosecution, because they are not indispensable in a buy-bust operation. What determines if there was, indeed, a sale of dangerous drugs is proof of the concurrence of all the elements of the offense; to wit: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor, which the prosecution has satisfactorily established. The prosecution satisfactorily proved the illegal sale of dangerous drugs and presented in court evidence of corpus delicti.[13]
	GR No. 180511 2008-07-28	PEOPLE v. MARILYN NAQUITA Y CIBULO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[54] 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.[55]
	GR No. 176735 2008-06-26	PEOPLE v. JERRY SANTOS Y MACOL CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Sec. 98. Limited Applicability of the Revised Penal Code. Notwithstanding any law, rule or regulation to the contrary, the provisions of the Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815), as amended, shall not apply to the provisions of this Act, except in the case of minor offenders. Where the offender is a minor, the penalty for acts punishable by life imprisonment to death provided herein shall be reclusion perpetua to death. Thus, in determining the imposable penalty, Article 63(2) of the Revised Penal Code shall not be applied. Under this article, in all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the lesser penalty shall be applied when there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances.[77] Since Section 98 of the Drugs Law contains the word "shall," the non-applicability of the Revised Penal Code provisions is mandatory, subject to exception only in case the offender is a minor.[78]
	GR No. 179940 2008-04-23	PEOPLE v. NORBERTO DEL MONTE Y GAPAY CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[24] 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.[25]
	GR NO. 177569 2007-11-28	PEOPLE v. RENATO DE GUZMAN Y MIRANDA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
What determines if there was, indeed, sale of dangerous drugs is proof of the concurrence of all the elements of the offense. A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment which has repeatedly been accepted to be a valid means of arresting violators of the Dangerous Drugs Law. The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the 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.[26]
	GR NO. 175928 2007-08-31	PEOPLE v. ALVIN PRINGAS Y PANGANIBAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Appellant was charged with violations of Sections 5, 11 and 12 of Republic Act No. 9165. Appellant was charged with violation of Section 5 for selling 0.03 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[47] What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.[48]
	GR NO. 175222 2007-07-27	PEOPLE v. RAMON QUIAOIT CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Finally, Quiaoit's defense of denial is a weak defense. Unless substantiated by clear and convincing proof, it is self-serving and undeserving of any weight in law (see People v. Hampton, 395 SCRA 156). It cannot prevail over the positive identification by PO1 Baquiran that it was Quiaoit who sold to him a sachet of "shabu" in the early morning of April 13, 2004 at Golden Miles Beerhouse.[24] Neither can we give credence to appellant's contention that the existence of a valid buy-bust operation was betrayed by the inadequate training of the members of the team for, it must be stated here, there is no textbook method of conducting buy-bust operations. The Court has left to the discretion of police authorities the selection of effective means to apprehend drug dealers.[25]

PEOPLE v. BERNARDO F. NICOLAS