Lawyerly

GR No. 193855

2015-02-18

DEL CASTILLO, J.

In a successful prosecution for illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must concur: "(1) [the] identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. x x x What is material in a 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 the corpus delicti."[16]

GR No. 194999

2015-02-09

PEOPLE v. GLORIA NEPOMUCENO Y PEDRAZA

DEL CASTILLO, J.

The Court is satisfied that the prosecution discharged its burden in a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, which 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."[8] This offense merely requires the consummation of the selling transaction, which occurs the moment the buyer exchanges his money for the drugs of the seller.[9]

GR No. 200797

2015-01-12

PEOPLE v. MANOLITO OPIANA Y TANAEL

DEL CASTILLO, J.

After a careful review of the records of the case, the Court finds the appeal to be lacking in merit. Both the RTC of Makati City, Branch 65 and the CA correctly found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165, as amended by RA 9346.[6] For the violation of Section 5, the prosecution satisfactorily established the following elements: "(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material in a 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 the corpus delicti or the illicit drug in evidence."[7] Similarly, the prosecution satisfactorily established the following elements for the illegal possession of dangerous drugs in violation of Section 11, to wit: appellant was shown to have been in possession of 0.74 gram of shabu, a prohibited drug; his possession was not authorized by law; and that he freely and consciously possessed the said illegal drug.

GR No. 189812

2014-09-01

PEOPLE v. REYNALDO BATURI

DEL CASTILLO, J.

In a successful prosecution for illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must concur: "(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. x x x What is material in a 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 the corpus delicti"[21] or the illicit drug in evidence.

GR No. 181541

2014-08-18

PEOPLE v. MARISSA MARCELO

DEL CASTILLO, J.

In a prosecution for illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must concur: "(1) [the] identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. x x x What is material in a 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 the corpus delicti"[13]or the illicit drug in evidence.

GR No. 190621

2014-02-10

PEOPLE v. GLENN SALVADOR Y BALVERDE

DEL CASTILLO, J.

In a successful prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu, the following elements must be established: "(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. x x x What is material in a 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 the corpus delicti"[25] or the illicit drug in evidence. "[T]he commission of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs x x x merely requires the consummation of the selling transaction, which happens the moment the exchange of money and drugs between the buyer and the seller takes place."[26]

GR No. 189840

2013-12-11

PEOPLE v. JAY MONTEVIRGEN Y OZARAGA

DEL CASTILLO, J.

In every prosecution for the illegal sale of shabu, under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the following elements must be proved: "(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. x x x What is material in a 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 the corpus delicti"[17] or the illicit drug in evidence. On the other hand, in prosecuting a case for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of the same law, the following elements must concur: "(1) the accused is in possession of an item or object, which is identified as a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.[18]

GR No. 182178

2011-08-15

STEPHEN SY Y TIBAGONG v. PEOPLE

PERALTA, J.

The Court accords the highest degree of respect to the findings of the lower court as to petitioner's guilt of the offense charged against him, particularly where such findings are adequately supported by documentary as well as testimonial evidence. The same respect holds too as regards the lower court's evaluation of the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. It is a settled policy of this Court, founded on reason and experience, to sustain the findings of fact of the trial court in criminal cases, on the rational assumption that it is in a better position to assess the evidence before it, having had the opportunity to make an honest determination of the witnesses' deportment during the trial.[21]

GR No. 191394

2010-10-18

PEOPLE v. MARIA POLITICO Y TICALA

VELASCO JR., J.

Against the positive testimony of PO2 Jimenez, the defense of accused-appellants that they were victims of a frame-up must fail. A defense of denial which is unsupported and unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence becomes negative and self-serving, deserving no weight in law, and cannot be given greater evidentiary value over convincing, straightforward, and probable testimony on affirmative matters.[16] Accused-appellants failed to present corroborating evidence to support their alibi. It must be remembered that accused-appellants' defenses of frame-up and denial require strong and convincing evidence to support them, for the incantation of such defense is nothing new to the Court.[17] The inability of accused-appellants to predicate their defense on anything other than their words alone ultimately condemns them to prison, especially in light of the prosecution's evidence and witnesses, which accused-appellants had been incapable of impeaching.[18] The trial court held that PO2 Jimenez's testimony was more credible than the couple's. The rule is that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect, because trial courts have the advantage of observing the demeanor of the witnesses as they testify.[19] Furthermore, accused-appellants cannot point to any ill motive for PO2 Jimenez to testify falsely. An affirmative testimony coming from credible witnesses without motive to perjure is far stronger than a negative testimony.[20]

GR No. 179710

2010-06-29

PEOPLE v. ALDRIN BERDADERO Y ARMAMENTO

DEL CASTILLO, J.

The elements necessary to establish a case for illegal sale of shabu are: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material in a 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 the corpus delicti or the illicit drug in evidence.[7]

GR No. 187483

2010-04-14

ARNEL BALARBAR Y BIASORA v. PEOPLE

NACHURA, J.

Hence, we agree with the trial court, as affirmed by the CA, that the prosecution's evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner is guilty of Violation of Article II, Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165, having knowingly carried with him the plastic sachet of shabu without legal authority at the time he was caught.[13] The Court, however, modifies the penalty imposed. There being no mitigating or aggravating circumstance and in accordance with the Indeterminate Sentence Law, petitioner should be meted the indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months as maximum.[14] The Court affirms the P300,000.00 fine imposed by the trial court.

GR No. 181040

2010-03-15

PEOPLE v. RAYMOND FABIAN Y NICOLAS

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

The alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses 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 witnesses' honesty. [19] The alleged inconsistencies on minor details pertain to peripheral matters and do not refer to the actual operation itself, that crucial moment when Fabian was caught delivering shabu to Macalong, who knowingly possessed it. Thus, the Court sustains the trial court in giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses especially since the trial court was in a better position to evaluate the witnesses' deportment during the trial. [20]

GR No. 177148

2009-06-30

PEOPLE v. RAUL NUÑEZ Y REVILLEZA

QUISUMBING, J.

Here, we find the testimonies of SPO1 Ilagan and PO2 Ortega believable and consistent on material points: appellant was shown the search warrant; the search was conducted in the latter's presence; and SPO1 Ilagan found shabu in appellant's dresser. It has been ruled that an affirmative testimony coming from credible witnesses without motive to perjure is far stronger than a negative testimony. Records show that appellant and the police officers were strangers to each other. Hence, there is no reason to suggest that the police officers were ill-motivated in apprehending appellant.[22]

GR No. 183566

2009-05-08

PEOPLE v. BONIFACIO BADRIAGO

VELASCO JR., J.

We agree with the findings by the trial and appellate courts on the particulars of the case. Findings of facts of the trial court, as affirmed by the appellate court, are conclusive absent any evidence that both courts ignored, misconstrued, or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances of substance which, if considered, would warrant a modification or reversal of the outcome of the case.[29] Since the aforementioned exceptions are not present, accused-appellant's conviction is warranted.

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. 175940

2008-02-06

PEOPLE v. ANSON ONG a.k.a. ALLAN CO

TINGA, J,

The prosecution seeks to establish the presence of these elements through the testimonies of the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation. The innocence or culpability of appellant thus hinges on the issue of credibility. It is an oft-repeated rule that findings of facts of the trial court, as affirmed by the appellate court, are conclusive on this Court, absent any evidence that both courts ignored, misconstrued, or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances of substance which, if considered, would warrant a modification or reversal of the outcome of the case.[27] This case falls under the exception.

	GR No. 193855 2015-02-18	PEOPLE v. VIRGILIO LARGO PERONDO DEL CASTILLO, J.
In a successful prosecution for illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must concur: "(1) [the] identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. x x x What is material in a 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 the corpus delicti."[16]
	GR No. 194999 2015-02-09	PEOPLE v. GLORIA NEPOMUCENO Y PEDRAZA DEL CASTILLO, J.
The Court is satisfied that the prosecution discharged its burden in a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, which 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."[8] This offense merely requires the consummation of the selling transaction, which occurs the moment the buyer exchanges his money for the drugs of the seller.[9]
	GR No. 200797 2015-01-12	PEOPLE v. MANOLITO OPIANA Y TANAEL DEL CASTILLO, J.
After a careful review of the records of the case, the Court finds the appeal to be lacking in merit. Both the RTC of Makati City, Branch 65 and the CA correctly found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165, as amended by RA 9346.[6] For the violation of Section 5, the prosecution satisfactorily established the following elements: "(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material in a 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 the corpus delicti or the illicit drug in evidence."[7] Similarly, the prosecution satisfactorily established the following elements for the illegal possession of dangerous drugs in violation of Section 11, to wit: appellant was shown to have been in possession of 0.74 gram of shabu, a prohibited drug; his possession was not authorized by law; and that he freely and consciously possessed the said illegal drug.
	GR No. 189812 2014-09-01	PEOPLE v. REYNALDO BATURI DEL CASTILLO, J.
In a successful prosecution for illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must concur: "(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. x x x What is material in a 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 the corpus delicti"[21] or the illicit drug in evidence.
	GR No. 181541 2014-08-18	PEOPLE v. MARISSA MARCELO DEL CASTILLO, J.
In a prosecution for illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must concur: "(1) [the] identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. x x x What is material in a 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 the corpus delicti"[13]or the illicit drug in evidence.
	GR No. 190621 2014-02-10	PEOPLE v. GLENN SALVADOR Y BALVERDE DEL CASTILLO, J.
In a successful prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu, the following elements must be established: "(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. x x x What is material in a 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 the corpus delicti"[25] or the illicit drug in evidence. "[T]he commission of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs x x x merely requires the consummation of the selling transaction, which happens the moment the exchange of money and drugs between the buyer and the seller takes place."[26]
	GR No. 189840 2013-12-11	PEOPLE v. JAY MONTEVIRGEN Y OZARAGA DEL CASTILLO, J.
In every prosecution for the illegal sale of shabu, under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the following elements must be proved: "(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. x x x What is material in a 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 the corpus delicti"[17] or the illicit drug in evidence. On the other hand, in prosecuting a case for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of the same law, the following elements must concur: "(1) the accused is in possession of an item or object, which is identified as a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.[18]
	GR No. 182178 2011-08-15	STEPHEN SY Y TIBAGONG v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
The Court accords the highest degree of respect to the findings of the lower court as to petitioner's guilt of the offense charged against him, particularly where such findings are adequately supported by documentary as well as testimonial evidence. The same respect holds too as regards the lower court's evaluation of the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. It is a settled policy of this Court, founded on reason and experience, to sustain the findings of fact of the trial court in criminal cases, on the rational assumption that it is in a better position to assess the evidence before it, having had the opportunity to make an honest determination of the witnesses' deportment during the trial.[21]
	GR No. 191394 2010-10-18	PEOPLE v. MARIA POLITICO Y TICALA VELASCO JR., J.
Against the positive testimony of PO2 Jimenez, the defense of accused-appellants that they were victims of a frame-up must fail. A defense of denial which is unsupported and unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence becomes negative and self-serving, deserving no weight in law, and cannot be given greater evidentiary value over convincing, straightforward, and probable testimony on affirmative matters.[16] Accused-appellants failed to present corroborating evidence to support their alibi. It must be remembered that accused-appellants' defenses of frame-up and denial require strong and convincing evidence to support them, for the incantation of such defense is nothing new to the Court.[17] The inability of accused-appellants to predicate their defense on anything other than their words alone ultimately condemns them to prison, especially in light of the prosecution's evidence and witnesses, which accused-appellants had been incapable of impeaching.[18] The trial court held that PO2 Jimenez's testimony was more credible than the couple's. The rule is that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect, because trial courts have the advantage of observing the demeanor of the witnesses as they testify.[19] Furthermore, accused-appellants cannot point to any ill motive for PO2 Jimenez to testify falsely. An affirmative testimony coming from credible witnesses without motive to perjure is far stronger than a negative testimony.[20]
	GR No. 179710 2010-06-29	PEOPLE v. ALDRIN BERDADERO Y ARMAMENTO DEL CASTILLO, J.
The elements necessary to establish a case for illegal sale of shabu are: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material in a 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 the corpus delicti or the illicit drug in evidence.[7]
	GR No. 187483 2010-04-14	ARNEL BALARBAR Y BIASORA v. PEOPLE NACHURA, J.
Hence, we agree with the trial court, as affirmed by the CA, that the prosecution's evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner is guilty of Violation of Article II, Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165, having knowingly carried with him the plastic sachet of shabu without legal authority at the time he was caught.[13] The Court, however, modifies the penalty imposed. There being no mitigating or aggravating circumstance and in accordance with the Indeterminate Sentence Law, petitioner should be meted the indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months as maximum.[14] The Court affirms the P300,000.00 fine imposed by the trial court.
	GR No. 181040 2010-03-15	PEOPLE v. RAYMOND FABIAN Y NICOLAS VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses 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 witnesses' honesty. [19] The alleged inconsistencies on minor details pertain to peripheral matters and do not refer to the actual operation itself, that crucial moment when Fabian was caught delivering shabu to Macalong, who knowingly possessed it. Thus, the Court sustains the trial court in giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses especially since the trial court was in a better position to evaluate the witnesses' deportment during the trial. [20]
	GR No. 177148 2009-06-30	PEOPLE v. RAUL NUÑEZ Y REVILLEZA QUISUMBING, J.
Here, we find the testimonies of SPO1 Ilagan and PO2 Ortega believable and consistent on material points: appellant was shown the search warrant; the search was conducted in the latter's presence; and SPO1 Ilagan found shabu in appellant's dresser. It has been ruled that an affirmative testimony coming from credible witnesses without motive to perjure is far stronger than a negative testimony. Records show that appellant and the police officers were strangers to each other. Hence, there is no reason to suggest that the police officers were ill-motivated in apprehending appellant.[22]
	GR No. 183566 2009-05-08	PEOPLE v. BONIFACIO BADRIAGO VELASCO JR., J.
We agree with the findings by the trial and appellate courts on the particulars of the case. Findings of facts of the trial court, as affirmed by the appellate court, are conclusive absent any evidence that both courts ignored, misconstrued, or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances of substance which, if considered, would warrant a modification or reversal of the outcome of the case.[29] Since the aforementioned exceptions are not present, accused-appellant's conviction is warranted.
	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. 175940 2008-02-06	PEOPLE v. ANSON ONG a.k.a. ALLAN CO TINGA, J,
The prosecution seeks to establish the presence of these elements through the testimonies of the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation. The innocence or culpability of appellant thus hinges on the issue of credibility. It is an oft-repeated rule that findings of facts of the trial court, as affirmed by the appellate court, are conclusive on this Court, absent any evidence that both courts ignored, misconstrued, or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances of substance which, if considered, would warrant a modification or reversal of the outcome of the case.[27] This case falls under the exception.

PEOPLE v. PHILIP DILAO Y CASTRO