This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2011-04-11 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, Felipe's reliance on the alleged inexistence of the buy-bust money to disprove the fact of sale is misplaced. This Court had previously ruled that the use of dusted money is not indispensable to prove the illegal sale of drugs. In fact, the absence of marked money does not create a hiatus in the evidence for the prosecution provided that the prosecution has adequately proven the sale.[15] | |||||
|
2008-08-20 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| As to the alleged inconsistencies in the testimony of PO1 Natividad, the same refer to minor and trivial matters which serve to strengthen, rather than destroy, the credibility of a witness.[12] | |||||
|
2007-07-30 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| All the prosecution's witnesses to the buy-bust operation consistently and unequivocally narrated the events that transpired during the operation, particularly the delivery by the accused of the plastic sachet to PO1 Memoracion upon payment by the latter of the agreed amount. The testimonies with respect to the discovery of the marked money were likewise straightforward and definite.[24] At this point, we reiterate the time-honored principle that factual findings of the trial court with respect to the credibility of the witnesses, when adopted and confirmed by the Court of Appeals, are final and conclusive unless circumstances are present that would show that the lower courts have overlooked, misunderstood, or misconstrued cogent facts that may alter the outcome of the case.[25] Indeed, these testimonies are worthy of credence as police officers involved in buy-bust operations are presumed to have performed their duties regularly. This presumption can only be overcome through clear and convincing evidence that shows either of two things: (1) that they were not properly performing their duty, or (2) that they were inspired by any improper motive.[26] There was absolutely no showing that either of these conditions obtains in the case at bar. | |||||
|
2007-07-10 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It may be true that no evidence was adduced in support of Rogelio's testimony that it was Josefina who reported the incident to the police and that Jesus, his neighbor, was the first person he informed about the incident. However, proofs of these allegations are not necessary in view of the candid and straightforward testimony of Rogelio, as corroborated by five other prosecution witnesses. Truly, an accused may be convicted on the sole basis of the positive and credible testimony of an eyewitness.[32] | |||||
|
2006-10-30 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| To sustain a conviction under a single prosecution witness, such testimony needs only to establish sufficiently: 1) the identity of the buyer, seller, object and consideration; and 2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof. Indeed, what is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the substance seized as evidence.[16] In this case, PO1 Rana, being the poseur-buyer, was the most competent person to testify on the fact of sale and he did so to the satisfaction of both the trial court and the appellate court. | |||||