Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. MANNY A. DOMINGCIL

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 188571 2012-10-10	PEOPLE v. MARICAR BRAINER Y MANGULABNAN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Time and again, this Court has ruled that the evaluation by the trial court of the credibility of witnesses is entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed on appeal unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case. The reason for this rule is that the trial court is in a better position to decide thereon, having personally heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[27] In this case, the Court finds no reason to deviate from the foregoing rule.
	GR No. 173485 2011-11-23	PEOPLE v. NENITA LEGASPI Y LUCAS LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
We do not agree. The presentation of an informant is not a requisite for the successful prosecution of drug cases. Informants are almost always never presented in court because of the need to preserve their invaluable service to the police. [42] In People v. Ho Chua,[43] we held: [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.[44]
	GR No. 174097 2010-07-21	PEOPLE v. SONNY PADUA Y REYES LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Anent the failure of the prosecution to present the testimony of the informant, it is well-settled that the testimony of an informant in drug-pushing cases is not essential for conviction and may be dispensed if the poseur-buyer testified on the same.[26] Informants are almost always never presented in court because of the need to preserve their invaluable service to the police.[27]
	GR No. 172092 2009-12-16	PEOPLE v. VS.JOEY TION Y CABADDU VELASCO JR., J.
Third, there is likewise no showing that the police officers framed up Joey. Unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or were not properly performing their duty, their testimonies on the buy-bust operation deserve full faith and credit.[22] Settled is the 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 suggesting ill motive on the part of the police officers or deviation from the regular performance of their duties.[23] The records do not show any allegation of improper motive on the part of the buy-bust team. Thus, the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties of the police officers must be upheld.
	GR No. 172092 2009-12-16	PEOPLE v. VS.JOEY TION Y CABADDU VELASCO JR., J.
Anent Joey's assertion that the three PhP 100 bills were planted, suffice it to say that the presentation of "marked money" is not essential in the prosecution of the crime of selling dangerous drugs. The marked money used in the buy-bust operation is not indispensable in drug cases; it is merely corroborative evidence.[35] Neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any of the money used in a "buy-bust" operation.[36] Besides, payment of consideration is immaterial in the distribution of illicit drugs.[37]
	GR No. 164580 2009-02-06	NORGIE CRUZ Y CASTRO v. PEOPLE CARPIO, J.
The failure of the poseur-buyer to testify on the actual purchase is not fatal to the prosecution's cause.[10] SPO1 Nepomuceno, the poseur-buyer, was already assigned in Iloilo City, Region VIII, when the cases were being tried. However, SPO1 Saddoy and PO1 Cruz saw the illicit transaction as both of them positioned themselves at the barber shop opposite the Dunkin' Donuts establishment.[11] PO1 Cruz witnessed the whole transaction where the marked money was exchanged for two sachets of shabu. He was positioned at Reparo Street where he saw the exchange of shabu and the marked money along Reparo Street.[12] SPO1 Saddoy, on the other hand, was the one who recovered the marked money from petitioner.[13] As long as there is proof that the sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence, a conviction for illegal sale of shabu can be sustained.[14]
	GR No. 156890 2004-07-13	PEOPLE v. LOLITA CASOLOCAN Y MANAYAGA CARPIO MORALES, J.
At the outset, it bears pointing out that prosecutions of cases for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act arising from buy-bust operations largely depend on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the same.[33] Unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or were not properly performing their duty, their testimonies on the operation deserve full faith and credit.[34] And so must the prosecution witnesses-members of the buy-bust team in the case at bar be accorded full credence in the absence of any improper motive to implicate appellant.