Lawyerly

GR No. 194836

2011-06-15

VELASCO JR., J.

A bare denial is an inherently weak defense [75] and has been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor for it can be easily concocted but difficult to prove, and is a common standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from violations of RA 9165. [76]

GR No. 191198

2011-01-26

PEOPLE v. NENE QUIAMANLON Y MALOG

VELASCO JR., J.

A bare denial is an inherently weak defense[44] and has been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor, for it can be easily concocted but difficult to prove, and is a common standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from violations of RA 9165.[45] And in the absence of any intent on the part of the police authorities to falsely impute such crime against the accused, the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty stands.[46]

GR No. 185163

2011-01-17

PEOPLE v. CARLO MAGNO AURE Y ARNALDO

VELASCO JR., J.

The sachet containing the dangerous drug was positively identified by MADAC operative Bilason during the trial as the very sachet with white crystalline substance sold and delivered to him by accused-appellants. Thus, accused-appellants' denial is self-serving and has little weight in law. A bare denial is an inherently weak defense,[41] and has been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor, for it can be easily concocted but difficult to prove, and is a common standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from violations of RA 9165.[42]

GR No. 172605

2010-11-22

PEOPLE v. EVANGELINE LASCANO Y VELARDE

PERALTA, J.

The essential elements to be established in the prosecution of illegal sale of marijuana are as follows: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[16] What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence.[17] We find these elements duly proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.

GR No. 186419

2010-04-23

PEOPLE v. DARLENE QUIGOD Y MIRANDA

VELASCO JR., J.

In the face of SPO2 Jamila's positive testimony, accused-appellant's denial is self-serving and has little weight in law. A bare denial is an inherently weak defense[40] and has been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor for it can be easily concocted but difficult to prove, and is a common standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from violations of RA 9165.[41] Time and again, We have held that "denials unsubstantiated by convincing evidence are not enough to engender reasonable doubt, particularly where the prosecution presents sufficiently telling proof of guilt."[42]

GR No. 185381

2009-12-16

PEOPLE v. DANILO CRUZ Y CULALA

VELASCO JR., J.

Denial and frame-up as defenses are inherently weak and have always been viewed by the Court with disfavor, for they can easily be invented and these are common defenses in most prosecutions for violations of RA 9165.[23]

GR No. 172092

2009-12-16

PEOPLE v. VS.JOEY TION Y CABADDU

VELASCO JR., J.

A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment legally employed by peace officers as an effective way of apprehending drug dealers in the act of committing an offense. Such police operation has judicial sanction as long as it is carried out with due respect to constitutional and legal safeguards.[11] There is no rigid or textbook method in conducting buy-bust operations.[12]

GR No. 186497

2009-09-17

PEOPLE v. HASANADDIN GUIARA Y BANSIL

VELASCO JR., J.

Denial, as a defense, is an inherently weak one[28] and has been viewed by this Court with disdain, for it can easily be concocted and is a very common line of defense in prosecutions arising from violations of RA 9165.[29] Similarly, the defense of frame-up is also easily fabricated and commonly used in buy-bust cases.[30]

GR No. 183819

2009-07-23

PEOPLE v. ARSENIO CORTEZ Y MACALINDONG

VELASCO JR., J.

Cortez's main defense of denial cannot prevail over the affirmative and credible testimony of SP02 Zipagan pointing Cortez as the seller of the prohibited substance. Denial, if not substantiated by clear and convincing proof, is negative and self-serving evidence and of little, if any, weight in law. As it can easily be fabricated, in fact a common standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from violations of RA 9165,[31] denial is inherently weak.[32] And the Court is at loss to understand how Cortez can with a straight face set up the defense of denial after having been caught in possession of the prohibited substance for which he received PhP 200 from SPO2 Zipagan.

GR No. 181492

2008-12-16

PEOPLE v. SAMUEL OBMIRANIS Y ORETA

TINGA, J.

It needs no elucidation that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty must be seen in the context of an existing rule of law or statute authorizing the performance of an act or duty or prescribing a procedure in the performance thereof. The presumption, in other words, obtains only where nothing in the records is suggestive of the fact that the law enforcers involved deviated from the standard conduct of official duty as provided for in the law. Otherwise, where the official act in question is irregular on its face, an adverse presumption arises as a matter of course.[48] There is indeed merit in the contention that where no ill motives to make false charges was successfully attributed to the members of the buy-bust team, the presumption prevails that said police operatives had regularly performed their duty, but the theory is correct only where there is no showing that the conduct of police duty was irregular. People v. Dulay[49] and People v. Ganenas[50] in fact both suggest that the presumption of regularity is disputed where there is deviation from the regular performance of duty. Suffice it to say at this point that the presumption of regularity in the conduct of police duty is merely just that a mere presumption disputable by contrary proof and which when challenged by the evidence cannot be regarded as binding truth.[51]

GR No. 169875

2007-12-18

PEOPLE v. DANILO JOCSON Y BAUTISTA

PUNO, CJ.

The testimony of SPO1 Delos Santos was spontaneous, straightforward and categorical. Further, SPO3 Antonio, back-up security of SPO1 Delos Santos, corroborated the latter's testimony on its material points. On the other hand, we find no reason to believe the denials and self-serving allegation of accused-appellant that his arrest was concocted out of thin air by the police officers. No evidence was presented to show any antagonism between him and the police officers to explain why the police officers allegedly picked on him. 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.[7] None was presented in the instant case.

GR NO. 177569

2007-11-28

PEOPLE v. RENATO DE GUZMAN Y MIRANDA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The trial court correctly appreciated the presumption of regularity of performance of duty in favor of PO3 Laxamana. It is 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 suggesting ill motive on the part of the police officers or deviation from the regular performance of their duties.[27] In the instant case, appellant failed to adduce evidence showing that the police officers were maliciously motivated. His admission that he had not met or encountered any of the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation prior to his arrest further bolsters the absence of such ill motive. Neither did appellant present evidence showing that the policemen diverged from the regular performance of their duty.

GR NO. 173795

2007-04-03

PEOPLE v. LOIDA R. SORIANO

TINGA, J.

Denial or frame-up, like alibi, has been viewed by the court with disfavor for it can just as easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.[25] The defense of frame-up or denial in drug cases requires strong and convincing evidence because of the presumption that the law enforcement agencies acted in the regular performance of their official duties.[26] Bare denials of appellants cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of the three police officers.[27] Moreover, there is no evidence of any improper motive on the part of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation to falsely testify against appellants.

GR NO. 172369

2007-03-07

PEOPLE v. ENRIQUE LOPEZ

GARCIA, J.

Besides, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they enjoy the presumption of having performed their duties in a regular manner, unless, of course, there is evidence to the contrary suggesting ill-motive on their part or deviation from the regular performance of their duties,[14] none of which exists in this case.

	GR No. 194836 2011-06-15	PEOPLE v. ARNOLD CASTRO Y YANGA VELASCO JR., J.
A bare denial is an inherently weak defense [75] and has been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor for it can be easily concocted but difficult to prove, and is a common standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from violations of RA 9165. [76]
	GR No. 191198 2011-01-26	PEOPLE v. NENE QUIAMANLON Y MALOG VELASCO JR., J.
A bare denial is an inherently weak defense[44] and has been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor, for it can be easily concocted but difficult to prove, and is a common standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from violations of RA 9165.[45] And in the absence of any intent on the part of the police authorities to falsely impute such crime against the accused, the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty stands.[46]
	GR No. 185163 2011-01-17	PEOPLE v. CARLO MAGNO AURE Y ARNALDO VELASCO JR., J.
The sachet containing the dangerous drug was positively identified by MADAC operative Bilason during the trial as the very sachet with white crystalline substance sold and delivered to him by accused-appellants. Thus, accused-appellants' denial is self-serving and has little weight in law. A bare denial is an inherently weak defense,[41] and has been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor, for it can be easily concocted but difficult to prove, and is a common standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from violations of RA 9165.[42]
	GR No. 172605 2010-11-22	PEOPLE v. EVANGELINE LASCANO Y VELARDE PERALTA, J.
The essential elements to be established in the prosecution of illegal sale of marijuana are as follows: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[16] What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence.[17] We find these elements duly proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.
	GR No. 186419 2010-04-23	PEOPLE v. DARLENE QUIGOD Y MIRANDA VELASCO JR., J.
In the face of SPO2 Jamila's positive testimony, accused-appellant's denial is self-serving and has little weight in law. A bare denial is an inherently weak defense[40] and has been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor for it can be easily concocted but difficult to prove, and is a common standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from violations of RA 9165.[41] Time and again, We have held that "denials unsubstantiated by convincing evidence are not enough to engender reasonable doubt, particularly where the prosecution presents sufficiently telling proof of guilt."[42]
	GR No. 185381 2009-12-16	PEOPLE v. DANILO CRUZ Y CULALA VELASCO JR., J.
Denial and frame-up as defenses are inherently weak and have always been viewed by the Court with disfavor, for they can easily be invented and these are common defenses in most prosecutions for violations of RA 9165.[23]
	GR No. 172092 2009-12-16	PEOPLE v. VS.JOEY TION Y CABADDU VELASCO JR., J.
A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment legally employed by peace officers as an effective way of apprehending drug dealers in the act of committing an offense. Such police operation has judicial sanction as long as it is carried out with due respect to constitutional and legal safeguards.[11] There is no rigid or textbook method in conducting buy-bust operations.[12]
	GR No. 186497 2009-09-17	PEOPLE v. HASANADDIN GUIARA Y BANSIL VELASCO JR., J.
Denial, as a defense, is an inherently weak one[28] and has been viewed by this Court with disdain, for it can easily be concocted and is a very common line of defense in prosecutions arising from violations of RA 9165.[29] Similarly, the defense of frame-up is also easily fabricated and commonly used in buy-bust cases.[30]
	GR No. 183819 2009-07-23	PEOPLE v. ARSENIO CORTEZ Y MACALINDONG VELASCO JR., J.
Cortez's main defense of denial cannot prevail over the affirmative and credible testimony of SP02 Zipagan pointing Cortez as the seller of the prohibited substance. Denial, if not substantiated by clear and convincing proof, is negative and self-serving evidence and of little, if any, weight in law. As it can easily be fabricated, in fact a common standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from violations of RA 9165,[31] denial is inherently weak.[32] And the Court is at loss to understand how Cortez can with a straight face set up the defense of denial after having been caught in possession of the prohibited substance for which he received PhP 200 from SPO2 Zipagan.
	GR No. 181492 2008-12-16	PEOPLE v. SAMUEL OBMIRANIS Y ORETA TINGA, J.
It needs no elucidation that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty must be seen in the context of an existing rule of law or statute authorizing the performance of an act or duty or prescribing a procedure in the performance thereof. The presumption, in other words, obtains only where nothing in the records is suggestive of the fact that the law enforcers involved deviated from the standard conduct of official duty as provided for in the law. Otherwise, where the official act in question is irregular on its face, an adverse presumption arises as a matter of course.[48] There is indeed merit in the contention that where no ill motives to make false charges was successfully attributed to the members of the buy-bust team, the presumption prevails that said police operatives had regularly performed their duty, but the theory is correct only where there is no showing that the conduct of police duty was irregular. People v. Dulay[49] and People v. Ganenas[50] in fact both suggest that the presumption of regularity is disputed where there is deviation from the regular performance of duty. Suffice it to say at this point that the presumption of regularity in the conduct of police duty is merely just that a mere presumption disputable by contrary proof and which when challenged by the evidence cannot be regarded as binding truth.[51]
	GR No. 169875 2007-12-18	PEOPLE v. DANILO JOCSON Y BAUTISTA PUNO, CJ.
The testimony of SPO1 Delos Santos was spontaneous, straightforward and categorical. Further, SPO3 Antonio, back-up security of SPO1 Delos Santos, corroborated the latter's testimony on its material points. On the other hand, we find no reason to believe the denials and self-serving allegation of accused-appellant that his arrest was concocted out of thin air by the police officers. No evidence was presented to show any antagonism between him and the police officers to explain why the police officers allegedly picked on him. 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.[7] None was presented in the instant case.
	GR NO. 177569 2007-11-28	PEOPLE v. RENATO DE GUZMAN Y MIRANDA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The trial court correctly appreciated the presumption of regularity of performance of duty in favor of PO3 Laxamana. It is 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 suggesting ill motive on the part of the police officers or deviation from the regular performance of their duties.[27] In the instant case, appellant failed to adduce evidence showing that the police officers were maliciously motivated. His admission that he had not met or encountered any of the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation prior to his arrest further bolsters the absence of such ill motive. Neither did appellant present evidence showing that the policemen diverged from the regular performance of their duty.
	GR NO. 173795 2007-04-03	PEOPLE v. LOIDA R. SORIANO TINGA, J.
Denial or frame-up, like alibi, has been viewed by the court with disfavor for it can just as easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.[25] The defense of frame-up or denial in drug cases requires strong and convincing evidence because of the presumption that the law enforcement agencies acted in the regular performance of their official duties.[26] Bare denials of appellants cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of the three police officers.[27] Moreover, there is no evidence of any improper motive on the part of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation to falsely testify against appellants.
	GR NO. 172369 2007-03-07	PEOPLE v. ENRIQUE LOPEZ GARCIA, J.
Besides, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they enjoy the presumption of having performed their duties in a regular manner, unless, of course, there is evidence to the contrary suggesting ill-motive on their part or deviation from the regular performance of their duties,[14] none of which exists in this case.

PEOPLE v. PABLO DULAY