Lawyerly

GR No. 203028

2014-01-15

REYES, J.

In affirming in toto the RTC, the CA ruled that Beran was caught in flagrante delicto as a result of a valid and legitimate buy-bust operation, an entrapment to apprehend law breakers while in the act of executing their criminal plan.[11] Relying solely on the testimony of PO3 Sia, it found that Beran sold the prohibited drug shabu to an undercover buyer, PO3 Sia; that Beran was arrested at the moment of the consummation of the sale transaction and immediately brought to the DAID-WPD along with the sachet of illegal drug confiscated from him; that when the substance was subjected to chemical analysis by the WPD Drug Laboratory, the content thereof was shown to be methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.

GR No. 197250

2013-07-17

PEOPLE v. REYNALDO “ANDY” SOMOZA Y HANDAYA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

In its Decision dated June 22, 2010, the Court of Appeals found nothing irregular in the buy-bust operation. The non-presentation of the entire amount of P1,000.00 marked money did not diminish the integrity of the buy-bust process, especially considering the circumstance that accused-appellant threw the money while trying to evade arrest. Moreover, the successful prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs does not hinge on the presentation of all the marked money used in the buy-bust operation, pursuant to Cruz v. People[30] which ruled that neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any money used in the buy-bust operation.

GR No. 200951

2012-09-05

PEOPLE v. JOSE ALMODIEL

CARPIO, J.

The accused, however, contends that there was no sale since the marked money was not delivered to the accused or presented in Court. Cruz v. People[18] is instructive in ruling that the failure to present the buy-bust money is not fatal to the case.

GR No. 182197

2012-02-27

PEOPLE v. TEOFILO HONRADO

BRION, J.

A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment whereby ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan.[18] 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.[19] 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.[20]

GR No. 192188

2011-04-11

PEOPLE v. ANDREW ROBLE

VELASCO JR., J.

In the crime of sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must be able to successfully prove the following elements: "(1) identities of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor."[34] Similarly, it is essential that the transaction or sale be proved to have actually taken place coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.[35] Corpus delicti means the "actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged."[36]

GR No. 189844

2010-11-15

PEOPLE v. MARIO VILLANUEVA BAGA

VELASCO JR., J.

In the crime of sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must be able to successfully prove the following elements: (1) identities of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it.[10] Likewise, it is fundamental to prove that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti. The term corpus delicti means the actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged.[11]

GR No. 186471

2010-01-25

PEOPLE v. RODANTE DE LEON Y DELA ROSA

VELASCO JR., J.

A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment whereby ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan.[22] In this jurisdiction, the operation is legal and has been proved to be an effective method of apprehending drug peddlers, provided due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards is undertaken.[23]

GR No. 185011

2009-12-23

PEOPLE v. SPO3 SANGKI ARA Y MIRASOL

VELASCO JR., J.

For the successful prosecution of the illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must be established: (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 its payment. 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.[19] All these requisites were met by the prosecution.

GR No. 185381

2009-12-16

PEOPLE v. DANILO CRUZ Y CULALA

VELASCO JR., J.

Settled is the rule that a prior surveillance of the suspected offender is not a prerequisite for the validity of a buy-bust operation, especially so if the buy-bust team is accompanied by the informant,[9] as in this case. We have held that when time is of the essence, the police may dispense with the need for prior surveillance.[10]

GR No. 186380

2009-10-12

PEOPLE v. MANUEL RESURRECCION

VELASCO JR., J.

What is more, the allegation of material inconsistencies involves a question of fact which generally cannot be raised. We will not disturb the findings of the trial court in assessing the credibility of the witnesses, unless some facts or circumstances of weight and influence have been overlooked or the significance of which has been misinterpreted by the trial court.[16] This is so because of the judicial experience that trial courts have; they are in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. They can, thus, more easily detect whether a witness is telling the truth or not.[17] All the more do we apply this rule when the trial courts' findings are sustained by the appellate court.[18]

	GR No. 203028 2014-01-15	PEOPLE v. JOSELITO BERAN Y ZAPANTA REYES, J.
In affirming in toto the RTC, the CA ruled that Beran was caught in flagrante delicto as a result of a valid and legitimate buy-bust operation, an entrapment to apprehend law breakers while in the act of executing their criminal plan.[11] Relying solely on the testimony of PO3 Sia, it found that Beran sold the prohibited drug shabu to an undercover buyer, PO3 Sia; that Beran was arrested at the moment of the consummation of the sale transaction and immediately brought to the DAID-WPD along with the sachet of illegal drug confiscated from him; that when the substance was subjected to chemical analysis by the WPD Drug Laboratory, the content thereof was shown to be methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
	GR No. 197250 2013-07-17	PEOPLE v. REYNALDO “ANDY” SOMOZA Y HANDAYA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In its Decision dated June 22, 2010, the Court of Appeals found nothing irregular in the buy-bust operation. The non-presentation of the entire amount of P1,000.00 marked money did not diminish the integrity of the buy-bust process, especially considering the circumstance that accused-appellant threw the money while trying to evade arrest. Moreover, the successful prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs does not hinge on the presentation of all the marked money used in the buy-bust operation, pursuant to Cruz v. People[30] which ruled that neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any money used in the buy-bust operation.
	GR No. 200951 2012-09-05	PEOPLE v. JOSE ALMODIEL CARPIO, J.
The accused, however, contends that there was no sale since the marked money was not delivered to the accused or presented in Court. Cruz v. People[18] is instructive in ruling that the failure to present the buy-bust money is not fatal to the case.
	GR No. 182197 2012-02-27	PEOPLE v. TEOFILO HONRADO BRION, J.
A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment whereby ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan.[18] 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.[19] 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.[20]
	GR No. 192188 2011-04-11	PEOPLE v. ANDREW ROBLE VELASCO JR., J.
In the crime of sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must be able to successfully prove the following elements: "(1) identities of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor."[34] Similarly, it is essential that the transaction or sale be proved to have actually taken place coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.[35] Corpus delicti means the "actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged."[36]
	GR No. 189844 2010-11-15	PEOPLE v. MARIO VILLANUEVA BAGA VELASCO JR., J.
In the crime of sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must be able to successfully prove the following elements: (1) identities of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it.[10] Likewise, it is fundamental to prove that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti. The term corpus delicti means the actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged.[11]
	GR No. 186471 2010-01-25	PEOPLE v. RODANTE DE LEON Y DELA ROSA VELASCO JR., J.
A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment whereby ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan.[22] In this jurisdiction, the operation is legal and has been proved to be an effective method of apprehending drug peddlers, provided due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards is undertaken.[23]
	GR No. 185011 2009-12-23	PEOPLE v. SPO3 SANGKI ARA Y MIRASOL VELASCO JR., J.
For the successful prosecution of the illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must be established: (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 its payment. 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.[19] All these requisites were met by the prosecution.
	GR No. 185381 2009-12-16	PEOPLE v. DANILO CRUZ Y CULALA VELASCO JR., J.
Settled is the rule that a prior surveillance of the suspected offender is not a prerequisite for the validity of a buy-bust operation, especially so if the buy-bust team is accompanied by the informant,[9] as in this case. We have held that when time is of the essence, the police may dispense with the need for prior surveillance.[10]
	GR No. 186380 2009-10-12	PEOPLE v. MANUEL RESURRECCION VELASCO JR., J.
What is more, the allegation of material inconsistencies involves a question of fact which generally cannot be raised. We will not disturb the findings of the trial court in assessing the credibility of the witnesses, unless some facts or circumstances of weight and influence have been overlooked or the significance of which has been misinterpreted by the trial court.[16] This is so because of the judicial experience that trial courts have; they are in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. They can, thus, more easily detect whether a witness is telling the truth or not.[17] All the more do we apply this rule when the trial courts' findings are sustained by the appellate court.[18]

NORGIE CRUZ Y CASTRO v. PEOPLE