Lawyerly

GR No. 195777

2013-06-19

PEREZ, J.

In People v. Concepcion,[31] the Court had the occasion to rule on the credibility of the witnesses with two conflicting statements on the place of arrest. It held: The testimony of defense witness Julieta dela Rosa does not convince us. As the wife of appellant Alfredo and sister-in-law of appellant Henry, we find her not to be credible. Her testimony is suspect and unsubstantiated. In her direct testimony, she said her husband, appellant Alfredo, was outside their house with his friends. However, such statement was belied by Alfredo himself who said he was inside his house when he was allegedly arrested by members of the PDEA. Such inconsistency as to where appellant Alfredo was when the alleged unlawful arrest was made, further diminishes the credibility of the defense witnesses.[32]

GR No. 192913

2013-06-13

PEOPLE v. JOEL REBOTAZO Y ALEJANDRIA

SERENO, C.J.

The Court has been categorical in declaring that neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any money used in a buy-bust operation.[32] Failure to mark the money or to present it in evidence is not material, since failure to do so will not necessarily disprove the sale.[33] If at all, the marked money merely serves as corroborative evidence in proving appellant's guilt.[34] Stated differently, in prosecuting a case for the sale of dangerous drugs, the failure to present marked money does not create a hiatus in the evidence for the prosecution, as long as the sale of dangerous drugs is adequately proven and the drug subject of the transaction is presented before the court.[35]

GR No. 177158

2013-02-06

PEOPLE v. LINDA ALVIZ y YATCO

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

It is a fundamental rule that factual findings of the trial courts involving credibility are accorded respect when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts, and speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. The reason for this is that the trial court is in a better position to decide the credibility of witnesses having heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals,[16] such as in this case. The Court, therefore, has no reason to deviate from this rule.

GR No. 192050

2013-01-09

NELSON VALLENO Y LUCITO v. PEOPLE

PEREZ, J.

In People v. Concepcion,[32] this Court ruled that the failure to submit in evidence the required physical inventory of the seized drugs and the photograph, as well as the absence of a member of media or the DOJ, pursuant to Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 is not fatal and will not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible.

GR No. 189327

2012-02-29

PEOPLE v. EMILY MENDOZA Y SARTIN

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

This Court has, in many cases, held that while the chain of custody should ideally be perfect, in reality it is not, "as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain."[30] The most important factor is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items as they will be used to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.[31] Hence, the prosecution's failure to submit in evidence the physical inventory and photograph of the seized drugs as required under Article 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, will not render Mendoza's arrest illegal or the items seized from her inadmissible.[32]

GR No. 177320

2012-02-22

PEOPLE v. CESAR BAUTISTA Y SANTOS

BERSAMIN, J.

Bautista's denial and defense of frame-up were given no consideration due to their being self-serving and uncorroborated. We declare such treatment warranted. He did not present Rosario, his wife, to corroborate his claim of being framed up although she was supposed to have been around at the time of his arrest. He did not also adduce evidence to substantiate his story of being falsely incriminated in a frame-up by competent evidence. His claim thereon did not prevail over the positive identification of him by PO2 Tayag as the drug pusher he had transacted with. As the Court sees it, he was not even sincere in claiming frame-up, for he did not formally charge the policemen for the supposed frame-up and extortion committed against him. Verily, defenses of frame-up and extortion are not looked upon with favor due to their being conveniently concocted and usually asserted by culprits arrested for violations of Republic Act No. 9165.[37]

GR No. 186131

2011-12-14

PEOPLE v. BENJAMIN AMANSEC Y DOÑA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Ideally, the procedure on the chain of custody should be perfect and unbroken. However "a testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain."[43] Thus, even though the prosecution failed to submit in evidence the physical inventory and photograph of the seized drugs as required under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, this will not render Amansec's arrest illegal or the items seized from him as inadmissible in evidence.[44] This Court has consistently held that "what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, because the same will be utilized in ascertaining the guilt or innocence of the accused."[45]

GR No. 192261

2011-11-16

PEOPLE v. GARET SALCENA Y VICTORINO

MENDOZA, J.

A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment, which in recent years has been accepted as valid and effective mode of arresting violators of the Dangerous Drugs Law.[18] It has been proven to be an effective way of unveiling the identities of drug dealers and of luring them out of obscurity.[19] To determine whether there was a valid entrapment or whether proper procedures were undertaken in effecting the buy-bust operation, it is incumbent upon the courts to make sure that the details of the operation are clearly and adequately established through relevant, material and competent evidence. The courts cannot merely rely on, but must apply with studied restraint, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by law enforcement agents. Courts are duty-bound to exercise extra vigilance in trying drug cases and should not allow themselves to be used as instruments of abuse and injustice lest innocent persons are made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses.[20]

GR No. 174980

2011-08-31

RADITO AURELIO Y REYES v. PEOPLE

DEL CASTILLO, J.

The testimonies of the petitioner's witnesses cannot be given more weight than the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Teresita is the sister of the petitioner while Julieta has been his neighbor for the past 10 years. Thus, their testimonies are necessarily suspect, considering they are petitioner's sibling and friend respectively. The testimonies of Julieta and Teresita even contradict each other as Teresita declared that five malefactors entered their home while Julieta stated that only two men went with petitioner inside his house. This inconsistency further diminishes the credibility of petitioner's witnesses.[23]

GR No. 177771

2011-05-30

PEOPLE v. ARIELITO ALIVIO Y OLIVEROS

BRION, J.

Prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation. Thus, we generally defer to the assessment on this point by the trial court as it had the opportunity to directly observe the witnesses, their demeanor, and their credibility on the witness stand.[11] Our independent examination of the records shows no compelling reason to depart from this rule.

GR No. 184952

2010-10-11

PEOPLE v. MARIANITO GONZAGA Y JOMAYA

DEL CASTILLO, J.

We are likewise not impressed with the appellant's contention that the failure to present the marked money was fatal to the case against him. "The marked money used in the buy-bust operation is not indispensable in drug cases; it is merely corroborative evidence."[29] In prosecuting a case for the sale of dangerous drugs, the failure to present "marked money does not create a hiatus in the evidence for the prosecution as long as the sale of dangerous drugs is adequately proven and the drug subject of the transaction is presented before the court. Neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any money used in the buy-bust operation."[30]

GR No. 186526

2010-08-25

PEOPLE v. FEDERICO CAMPOS Y RANILE

CARPIO MORALES, J.

People v. Concepcion[4] so instructs: After going over the evidence on record, we find that there, indeed, was a buy-bust operation involving appellants. The prosecution's failure to submit in evidence the required physical inventory of the seized drugs and the photograph pursuant to Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 will not exonerate appellants. Non-compliance with said section is not fatal and will not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in teh determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. (emphasis supplied)

GR No. 189278

2010-07-26

PEOPLE v. ELIZABETH MARCELINO Y REYES

VELASCO JR., J.

Also working against Elizabeth's cause is the presumption of regularity accorded those involved in the buy-bust operation. It is a settled rule that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers, for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary.[20] Accused-appellant failed to overcome this presumption by showing clear and convincing evidence that the police officers did not properly perform their duty or that they were inspired by an improper motive.[21]

GR No. 188570

2010-07-06

PEOPLE v. CHRISTOPHER DE MESA

NACHURA, J.

As this Court has held in a number of previous cases, non-compliance with Section 21 is not fatal and will not render an accused's arrest illegal or make the items seized inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.[30]

GR No. 188611

2010-06-16

PEOPLE v. BELEN MARIACOS

NACHURA, J.

It is admitted that there were no photographs taken of the drugs seized, that appellant was not accompanied by counsel, and that no representative from the media and the DOJ were present. However, this Court has already previously held that non-compliance with Section 21 is not fatal and will not render an accused's arrest illegal, or make the items seized inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.[37]

GR No. 185011

2009-12-23

PEOPLE v. SPO3 SANGKI ARA Y MIRASOL

VELASCO JR., J.

Given the prosecution's evidence, we rule that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties has not been overturned. The presumption remains because the defense failed to present clear and convincing evidence that the police officers did not properly perform their duty or that they were inspired by an improper motive.[21] Ara could not explain why his fellow police officers, who did not know him prior to his arrest, would frame him for such a serious offense.

GR No. 184174

2009-04-07

PEOPLE v. REYNALDO CAPALAD Y ESTO

VELASCO JR., J.

In the instant case, the defense of frame-up has not been substantiated by accused-appellant. No clear and convincing evidence has been adduced showing the police officers' alleged extortion. As we have previously held, against the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, accused-appellant's plain denial of the offenses charged, unsubstantiated by any credible and convincing evidence, must simply fail.[17]What is more, if accused-appellant were truly aggrieved, he could have filed a complaint against the arresting officers.[18] We are, thus, constrained to uphold the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties by the police officers.

GR No. 164580

2009-02-06

NORGIE CRUZ Y CASTRO v. PEOPLE

CARPIO, J.

The failure to present the buy-bust money is likewise not fatal. The marked money used in the buy-bust operation is not indispensable but merely corroborative in nature. In the prosecution for the sale of dangerous drugs, the absence of marked money does not create a hiatus in the evidence for the prosecution as long as the sale of dangerous drugs is adequately proven and the drug subject of the transaction is presented before the court. Neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any money used in the buy-bust operation. What is material to 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 as evidence.[16] The prosecution duly established both in this case.

GR No. 180511

2008-07-28

PEOPLE v. MARILYN NAQUITA Y CIBULO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Neither would non-compliance with Section 21[51] render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible.[52] What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[53]

	GR No. 195777 2013-06-19	PEOPLE v. FERDINAND CASTRO Y LAPENA PEREZ, J.
In People v. Concepcion,[31] the Court had the occasion to rule on the credibility of the witnesses with two conflicting statements on the place of arrest. It held: The testimony of defense witness Julieta dela Rosa does not convince us. As the wife of appellant Alfredo and sister-in-law of appellant Henry, we find her not to be credible. Her testimony is suspect and unsubstantiated. In her direct testimony, she said her husband, appellant Alfredo, was outside their house with his friends. However, such statement was belied by Alfredo himself who said he was inside his house when he was allegedly arrested by members of the PDEA. Such inconsistency as to where appellant Alfredo was when the alleged unlawful arrest was made, further diminishes the credibility of the defense witnesses.[32]
	GR No. 192913 2013-06-13	PEOPLE v. JOEL REBOTAZO Y ALEJANDRIA SERENO, C.J.
The Court has been categorical in declaring that neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any money used in a buy-bust operation.[32] Failure to mark the money or to present it in evidence is not material, since failure to do so will not necessarily disprove the sale.[33] If at all, the marked money merely serves as corroborative evidence in proving appellant's guilt.[34] Stated differently, in prosecuting a case for the sale of dangerous drugs, the failure to present marked money does not create a hiatus in the evidence for the prosecution, as long as the sale of dangerous drugs is adequately proven and the drug subject of the transaction is presented before the court.[35]
	GR No. 177158 2013-02-06	PEOPLE v. LINDA ALVIZ y YATCO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
It is a fundamental rule that factual findings of the trial courts involving credibility are accorded respect when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts, and speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. The reason for this is that the trial court is in a better position to decide the credibility of witnesses having heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals,[16] such as in this case. The Court, therefore, has no reason to deviate from this rule.
	GR No. 192050 2013-01-09	NELSON VALLENO Y LUCITO v. PEOPLE PEREZ, J.
In People v. Concepcion,[32] this Court ruled that the failure to submit in evidence the required physical inventory of the seized drugs and the photograph, as well as the absence of a member of media or the DOJ, pursuant to Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 is not fatal and will not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible.
	GR No. 189327 2012-02-29	PEOPLE v. EMILY MENDOZA Y SARTIN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
This Court has, in many cases, held that while the chain of custody should ideally be perfect, in reality it is not, "as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain."[30] The most important factor is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items as they will be used to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.[31] Hence, the prosecution's failure to submit in evidence the physical inventory and photograph of the seized drugs as required under Article 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, will not render Mendoza's arrest illegal or the items seized from her inadmissible.[32]
	GR No. 177320 2012-02-22	PEOPLE v. CESAR BAUTISTA Y SANTOS BERSAMIN, J.
Bautista's denial and defense of frame-up were given no consideration due to their being self-serving and uncorroborated. We declare such treatment warranted. He did not present Rosario, his wife, to corroborate his claim of being framed up although she was supposed to have been around at the time of his arrest. He did not also adduce evidence to substantiate his story of being falsely incriminated in a frame-up by competent evidence. His claim thereon did not prevail over the positive identification of him by PO2 Tayag as the drug pusher he had transacted with. As the Court sees it, he was not even sincere in claiming frame-up, for he did not formally charge the policemen for the supposed frame-up and extortion committed against him. Verily, defenses of frame-up and extortion are not looked upon with favor due to their being conveniently concocted and usually asserted by culprits arrested for violations of Republic Act No. 9165.[37]
	GR No. 186131 2011-12-14	PEOPLE v. BENJAMIN AMANSEC Y DOÑA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Ideally, the procedure on the chain of custody should be perfect and unbroken. However "a testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain."[43] Thus, even though the prosecution failed to submit in evidence the physical inventory and photograph of the seized drugs as required under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, this will not render Amansec's arrest illegal or the items seized from him as inadmissible in evidence.[44] This Court has consistently held that "what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, because the same will be utilized in ascertaining the guilt or innocence of the accused."[45]
	GR No. 192261 2011-11-16	PEOPLE v. GARET SALCENA Y VICTORINO MENDOZA, J.
A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment, which in recent years has been accepted as valid and effective mode of arresting violators of the Dangerous Drugs Law.[18] It has been proven to be an effective way of unveiling the identities of drug dealers and of luring them out of obscurity.[19] To determine whether there was a valid entrapment or whether proper procedures were undertaken in effecting the buy-bust operation, it is incumbent upon the courts to make sure that the details of the operation are clearly and adequately established through relevant, material and competent evidence. The courts cannot merely rely on, but must apply with studied restraint, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by law enforcement agents. Courts are duty-bound to exercise extra vigilance in trying drug cases and should not allow themselves to be used as instruments of abuse and injustice lest innocent persons are made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses.[20]
	GR No. 174980 2011-08-31	RADITO AURELIO Y REYES v. PEOPLE DEL CASTILLO, J.
The testimonies of the petitioner's witnesses cannot be given more weight than the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Teresita is the sister of the petitioner while Julieta has been his neighbor for the past 10 years. Thus, their testimonies are necessarily suspect, considering they are petitioner's sibling and friend respectively. The testimonies of Julieta and Teresita even contradict each other as Teresita declared that five malefactors entered their home while Julieta stated that only two men went with petitioner inside his house. This inconsistency further diminishes the credibility of petitioner's witnesses.[23]
	GR No. 177771 2011-05-30	PEOPLE v. ARIELITO ALIVIO Y OLIVEROS BRION, J.
Prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation. Thus, we generally defer to the assessment on this point by the trial court as it had the opportunity to directly observe the witnesses, their demeanor, and their credibility on the witness stand.[11] Our independent examination of the records shows no compelling reason to depart from this rule.
	GR No. 184952 2010-10-11	PEOPLE v. MARIANITO GONZAGA Y JOMAYA DEL CASTILLO, J.
We are likewise not impressed with the appellant's contention that the failure to present the marked money was fatal to the case against him. "The marked money used in the buy-bust operation is not indispensable in drug cases; it is merely corroborative evidence."[29] In prosecuting a case for the sale of dangerous drugs, the failure to present "marked money does not create a hiatus in the evidence for the prosecution as long as the sale of dangerous drugs is adequately proven and the drug subject of the transaction is presented before the court. Neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any money used in the buy-bust operation."[30]
	GR No. 186526 2010-08-25	PEOPLE v. FEDERICO CAMPOS Y RANILE CARPIO MORALES, J.
People v. Concepcion[4] so instructs: After going over the evidence on record, we find that there, indeed, was a buy-bust operation involving appellants. The prosecution's failure to submit in evidence the required physical inventory of the seized drugs and the photograph pursuant to Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 will not exonerate appellants. Non-compliance with said section is not fatal and will not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in teh determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. (emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 189278 2010-07-26	PEOPLE v. ELIZABETH MARCELINO Y REYES VELASCO JR., J.
Also working against Elizabeth's cause is the presumption of regularity accorded those involved in the buy-bust operation. It is a settled rule that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers, for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary.[20] Accused-appellant failed to overcome this presumption by showing clear and convincing evidence that the police officers did not properly perform their duty or that they were inspired by an improper motive.[21]
	GR No. 188570 2010-07-06	PEOPLE v. CHRISTOPHER DE MESA NACHURA, J.
As this Court has held in a number of previous cases, non-compliance with Section 21 is not fatal and will not render an accused's arrest illegal or make the items seized inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.[30]
	GR No. 188611 2010-06-16	PEOPLE v. BELEN MARIACOS NACHURA, J.
It is admitted that there were no photographs taken of the drugs seized, that appellant was not accompanied by counsel, and that no representative from the media and the DOJ were present. However, this Court has already previously held that non-compliance with Section 21 is not fatal and will not render an accused's arrest illegal, or make the items seized inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.[37]
	GR No. 185011 2009-12-23	PEOPLE v. SPO3 SANGKI ARA Y MIRASOL VELASCO JR., J.
Given the prosecution's evidence, we rule that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties has not been overturned. The presumption remains because the defense failed to present clear and convincing evidence that the police officers did not properly perform their duty or that they were inspired by an improper motive.[21] Ara could not explain why his fellow police officers, who did not know him prior to his arrest, would frame him for such a serious offense.
	GR No. 184174 2009-04-07	PEOPLE v. REYNALDO CAPALAD Y ESTO VELASCO JR., J.
In the instant case, the defense of frame-up has not been substantiated by accused-appellant. No clear and convincing evidence has been adduced showing the police officers' alleged extortion. As we have previously held, against the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, accused-appellant's plain denial of the offenses charged, unsubstantiated by any credible and convincing evidence, must simply fail.[17]What is more, if accused-appellant were truly aggrieved, he could have filed a complaint against the arresting officers.[18] We are, thus, constrained to uphold the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties by the police officers.
	GR No. 164580 2009-02-06	NORGIE CRUZ Y CASTRO v. PEOPLE CARPIO, J.
The failure to present the buy-bust money is likewise not fatal. The marked money used in the buy-bust operation is not indispensable but merely corroborative in nature. In the prosecution for the sale of dangerous drugs, the absence of marked money does not create a hiatus in the evidence for the prosecution as long as the sale of dangerous drugs is adequately proven and the drug subject of the transaction is presented before the court. Neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any money used in the buy-bust operation. What is material to 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 as evidence.[16] The prosecution duly established both in this case.
	GR No. 180511 2008-07-28	PEOPLE v. MARILYN NAQUITA Y CIBULO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Neither would non-compliance with Section 21[51] render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible.[52] What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[53]

PEOPLE v. ALFREDO CONCEPCION Y CLEMENTE