Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. MARIAM BANDANG Y SALAMAT

This case has been cited 11 times or more.

	GR No. 189812 2014-09-01	PEOPLE v. REYNALDO BATURI DEL CASTILLO, J.
Appellant's defense of frame-up likewise fails. "[F]rame-up is viewed with disfavor since, like alibi, it can easily be concocted and is a common ploy in most prosecutions for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Law."[29] Appellant's claim that he was framed by the police officers for refusing to reveal the whereabouts of a drug pusher by the name of Montilla is not worthy of belief. For the police officers to frame him, they must have known appellant prior to the incident.[30] Here, the police officers do not personally know appellant prior to the incident. In fact, appellant himself testified that when the police operatives approached him, they still asked him if he is Naldong. Neither did the appellant claim that he knows the police officers who apprehended him. Also, if appellant was indeed a victim of frame-up by police officers, he should have filed the proper charges against them. "The fact that no administrative or criminal charges were filed lends cogency to the conclusion that the alleged frame-up was merely concocted as a defense scheme. This inaction clearly betrays appellant's claim of frame-up."[31]
	GR No. 181541 2014-08-18	PEOPLE v. MARISSA MARCELO DEL CASTILLO, J.
Appellant's contention that there was no direct link between her, the marked money and shabu again fails to impress. In an entrapment operation, the prosecution must establish the poseur-buyer's receipt of the shabu from appellant and present the same in court.[22] The eyewitness testimonies of P/Insp. Rabulan and PO2 Salvatierra are sufficient to prove the actual exchange of the marked money and the plastic sachet of shabu between the poseur-buyer and appellant. These objects were presented in evidence during the trial. The existence of the illicit sale is therefore evident.
	GR No. 189327 2012-02-29	PEOPLE v. EMILY MENDOZA Y SARTIN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
This Court has invariably viewed the common and standard defenses of denial and frame-up in drugs cases with disfavor for being easily concocted.[42]
	GR No. 185379 2009-11-27	PEOPLE v. VS.ZENAIDA QUEBRAL Y MATEO ABAD, J.
Besides, corpus delicti has nothing to do with the testimony of the laboratory analyst.In fact, this Court has ruled that the report of an official forensic chemist regarding a recovered prohibited drug enjoys the presumption of regularity in its preparation. Corollarily, under Section 44 of Rule 130, Revised Rules of Court, entries in official records made in the performance of official duty are prima facie evidence of the facts they state.[16]Therefore, the report of Forensic Chemical Officer Sta. Maria that the five plastic sachets PO3 Galvez gave to her for examination contained shabu is conclusive in the absence of evidence proving the contrary.At any rate, as the CA pointed out, the defense agreed during trial to dispense with the testimony of the chemist and stipulated on his findings.[17]
	GR No. 177164 2009-06-30	PEOPLE v. RAMON FRONDOZO Y DALIDA QUISUMBING, J.
Jurisprudence clearly sets the essential elements to be established in the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, viz.: (1) the transaction or sale took place, (2) the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence, and (3) the buyer and seller were identified.[31]
	GR No. 182790 2009-04-24	PEOPLE v. CESAR CANTALEJO Y MANLANGIT TINGA, J.
In prosecutions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following must be proven: (1) that the transaction or sale took place; (2) the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller were identified.[10] The dangerous drug is the very corpus delicti of the offense.[11]
	GR No. 181494 2009-03-17	PEOPLE v. MONALYN CERVANTES Y SOLAR VELASCO JR., J.
Second, it must be stressed that Atty. Enriquez raises his objection to the Initial Laboratory Report and Chemistry Report No. D-1585-00 only now. He should have objected to their admissibility at the time they were being offered. Otherwise, the objection shall be considered waived and such evidence will form part of the records of the case as competent and admissible evidence. The familiar rule in this jurisdiction is that the admissibility of certain documents x x x cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.[31] (Emphasis added.) It should be pointed out, however, that the Bandang ruling was cast against a different backdrop where: (1) the seized crystalline substance was the same item examined and tested positive for shabu and presented in court, implying that the identity and integrity of prohibited drug was safeguarded throughout, a circumstance not obtaining in this case; (2) there was a compelling reason for not presenting the examining forensic chemist, i.e., the parties stipulated that the confiscated seven plastic bags have been identified and examined and that the chemist stated in his report that the substance is positive for shabu. In this case, C/I Geronimo's resignation from the service is not, standing alone, a justifying factor for the prosecution to dispense with her testimony; and (3) accused Bandang, et al. did not raise any objection to the chemical report during trial, unlike here where accused-appellant objected to Inspector Tria's competency to testify on the Geronimo chemical report.
	GR No. 177222 2008-10-29	PEOPLE v. RANILO DE LA CRUZ Y LIZING TINGA, J.
In prosecutions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following must be proven: (1) that the transaction or sale took place; (2) the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller were identified.[26] The dangerous drug is the very corpus delicti of the offense.[27]
	GR NO. 173051 2007-07-31	PEOPLE v. GERARDO ORTEZA TINGA, J.
In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following must be proven: (1) that the transaction or sale took place; (2) the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller were identified. [27] What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited or regulated drug. The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and the accused.[28]