Lawyerly

GR No. 201156

2014-01-29

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

As to the failure to photograph the inventory of the seized items, such omission on the part of the police officers is not fatal to the case against the accused-appellant. This Court has ruled in various cases, such as People v. Almodiel,[38] People v. Rosialda,[39] People v. Llamado,[40] and People v. Rivera,[41] that the failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the required physical inventory and photograph of the evidence confiscated is not fatal and does not automatically render the arrest of the accused illegal or the items seized from him inadmissible.[42] As has been said earlier, the prosecution has sufficiently shown that the identity and evidentiary integrity of the seized items were properly preserved, and that is not materially affected by the prosecution's failure to take a photograph of the seized items.

GR No. 184056

2012-11-26

PEOPLE v. GEORGE EYAM Y WATANG

DEL CASTILLO, J.

The second error ascribed to the trial court boils down to the issue of credibility of witnesses. In this regard, the well-settled rule is that in the absence of palpable error or grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court, its evaluation of the credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal.[15] And "[i]n cases involving violations of Dangerous Drugs Act, credence should be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses especially when they are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner unless there is evidence to the contrary."[16] We cannot find anything to justify a deviation from the said rules.

GR No. 200951

2012-09-05

PEOPLE v. JOSE ALMODIEL

CARPIO, J.

It has been settled that 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.[20] In the present case, the claim of ill-motive was not substantiated by the accused. The trial court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses convincing, categorical and credible. Findings of the trial court, which are factual in nature and which involve the credibility of witnesses, are accorded respect when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts or speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions are made from such findings.[21] This rule finds an even more stringent application where the findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals, as in the present case.[22]

GR No. 192235

2011-07-06

PEOPLE v. ROLANDO LAYLO Y CEPRES

CARPIO, J.

The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment.[9]

GR No. 183676

2011-06-22

RUEL AMPATUAN 'ALIAS RUEL v. PEOPLE

PEREZ, J.

In cases involving violations of Dangerous Drugs Act, credence should be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses especially when they are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary. Moreover, in the absence of proof of motive to falsely impute such a serious crime against the appellant, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, as well as the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, shall prevail over appellant's self-serving and uncorroborated denial. [26]

GR No. 189806

2011-01-12

PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO MANLANGIT Y TRESBALLES

VELASCO JR., J.

Moreover, accused-appellant's defense of denial, without substantial evidence to support it, cannot overcome the presumption of regularity of the police officers' performance of official functions. Thus, the Court ruled in People v. Llamado:[13]

GR No. 184599

2010-11-24

PEOPLE v. TEDDY BATOON Y MIGUEL

VELASCO JR., J.

There is no question that the police conducted a valid buy-bust operation against accused-appellants. The positive testimonies of the police officers show the coordinated efforts of the PAID-SOT to entrap accused-appellants while in the act of selling a prohibited drug. The regularity of the performance of their duty on this matter could not be overturned absent any convincing evidence to the contrary.[13]

GR No. 185848

2010-08-16

PEOPLE v. MICHAEL SEMBRANO Y CASTRO

PEREZ, J.

Finally, in cases involving violations of Dangerous Drugs Act, credence should be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses especially when they are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary.[18] In this regard, the defense failed to show any ill motive or odious intent on the part of the police operatives to impute such a serious crime that would put in jeopardy the life and liberty of an innocent person, such as in the case of appellant. Incidentally, if these were simply trumped-up charges against him, it remains a question why no administrative charges were brought against the police operatives. Moreover, in weighing the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses vis-à-vis those of the defense, it is a well-settled rule that in the absence of palpable error or grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge, the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal.[19]

GR No. 179038

2010-05-06

PEOPLE v. JOSEPH SERRANO

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Contrary to the accused-appellants' assertion, their constitutional right to be presumed innocent was not infringed by the reliance of the trial court on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions on the part of the arresting officers. In several cases, this Court has relied on such a presumption of regularity in order to determine if the testimonies of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation deserve full faith and credit.[21] In People v. Llamado,[22] we held: In cases involving violations of Dangerous Drugs Act, credence should be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses especially when they are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there be evidence to the contrary. Moreover, in the absence of proof of motive to falsely impute such a serious crime against the appellant, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, as well as the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, shall prevail over appellant's self-serving and uncorroborated denial. (Emphasis ours.)

GR No. 183088

2009-09-17

PEOPLE v. DONATO CAPCO Y SABADLAB

VELASCO JR., J.

Another presumption Capco failed to overcome relates to the prosecution's witnesses. Decisive in a prosecution for drug pushing or possession is the testimony of the police officers on what transpired before, during, and after the accused was caught and how the evidence was preserved. Their testimonies in open court are considered in line with the presumption that law enforcement officers have performed their duties in a regular manner, absent evidence to the contrary. In the absence of proof of motive to falsely impute a crime as serious as drug pushing against Capco, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, as well as the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, shall prevail over Capco's self-serving and uncorroborated denial.[18] This presumption holds true for the police officers in this case, as Capco could not provide a credible and believable account on why he was being falsely accused.

	GR No. 201156 2014-01-29	PEOPLE v. JOSELITO MORATE Y TARNATE LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
As to the failure to photograph the inventory of the seized items, such omission on the part of the police officers is not fatal to the case against the accused-appellant. This Court has ruled in various cases, such as People v. Almodiel,[38] People v. Rosialda,[39] People v. Llamado,[40] and People v. Rivera,[41] that the failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the required physical inventory and photograph of the evidence confiscated is not fatal and does not automatically render the arrest of the accused illegal or the items seized from him inadmissible.[42] As has been said earlier, the prosecution has sufficiently shown that the identity and evidentiary integrity of the seized items were properly preserved, and that is not materially affected by the prosecution's failure to take a photograph of the seized items.
	GR No. 184056 2012-11-26	PEOPLE v. GEORGE EYAM Y WATANG DEL CASTILLO, J.
The second error ascribed to the trial court boils down to the issue of credibility of witnesses. In this regard, the well-settled rule is that in the absence of palpable error or grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court, its evaluation of the credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal.[15] And "[i]n cases involving violations of Dangerous Drugs Act, credence should be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses especially when they are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner unless there is evidence to the contrary."[16] We cannot find anything to justify a deviation from the said rules.
	GR No. 200951 2012-09-05	PEOPLE v. JOSE ALMODIEL CARPIO, J.
It has been settled that 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.[20] In the present case, the claim of ill-motive was not substantiated by the accused. The trial court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses convincing, categorical and credible. Findings of the trial court, which are factual in nature and which involve the credibility of witnesses, are accorded respect when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts or speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions are made from such findings.[21] This rule finds an even more stringent application where the findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals, as in the present case.[22]
	GR No. 192235 2011-07-06	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO LAYLO Y CEPRES CARPIO, J.
The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment.[9]
	GR No. 183676 2011-06-22	RUEL AMPATUAN 'ALIAS RUEL v. PEOPLE PEREZ, J.
In cases involving violations of Dangerous Drugs Act, credence should be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses especially when they are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary. Moreover, in the absence of proof of motive to falsely impute such a serious crime against the appellant, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, as well as the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, shall prevail over appellant's self-serving and uncorroborated denial. [26]
	GR No. 189806 2011-01-12	PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO MANLANGIT Y TRESBALLES VELASCO JR., J.
Moreover, accused-appellant's defense of denial, without substantial evidence to support it, cannot overcome the presumption of regularity of the police officers' performance of official functions. Thus, the Court ruled in People v. Llamado:[13]
	GR No. 184599 2010-11-24	PEOPLE v. TEDDY BATOON Y MIGUEL VELASCO JR., J.
There is no question that the police conducted a valid buy-bust operation against accused-appellants. The positive testimonies of the police officers show the coordinated efforts of the PAID-SOT to entrap accused-appellants while in the act of selling a prohibited drug. The regularity of the performance of their duty on this matter could not be overturned absent any convincing evidence to the contrary.[13]
	GR No. 185848 2010-08-16	PEOPLE v. MICHAEL SEMBRANO Y CASTRO PEREZ, J.
Finally, in cases involving violations of Dangerous Drugs Act, credence should be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses especially when they are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary.[18] In this regard, the defense failed to show any ill motive or odious intent on the part of the police operatives to impute such a serious crime that would put in jeopardy the life and liberty of an innocent person, such as in the case of appellant. Incidentally, if these were simply trumped-up charges against him, it remains a question why no administrative charges were brought against the police operatives. Moreover, in weighing the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses vis-à-vis those of the defense, it is a well-settled rule that in the absence of palpable error or grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge, the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal.[19]
	GR No. 179038 2010-05-06	PEOPLE v. JOSEPH SERRANO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Contrary to the accused-appellants' assertion, their constitutional right to be presumed innocent was not infringed by the reliance of the trial court on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions on the part of the arresting officers. In several cases, this Court has relied on such a presumption of regularity in order to determine if the testimonies of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation deserve full faith and credit.[21] In People v. Llamado,[22] we held: In cases involving violations of Dangerous Drugs Act, credence should be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses especially when they are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there be evidence to the contrary. Moreover, in the absence of proof of motive to falsely impute such a serious crime against the appellant, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, as well as the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, shall prevail over appellant's self-serving and uncorroborated denial. (Emphasis ours.)
	GR No. 183088 2009-09-17	PEOPLE v. DONATO CAPCO Y SABADLAB VELASCO JR., J.
Another presumption Capco failed to overcome relates to the prosecution's witnesses. Decisive in a prosecution for drug pushing or possession is the testimony of the police officers on what transpired before, during, and after the accused was caught and how the evidence was preserved. Their testimonies in open court are considered in line with the presumption that law enforcement officers have performed their duties in a regular manner, absent evidence to the contrary. In the absence of proof of motive to falsely impute a crime as serious as drug pushing against Capco, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, as well as the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, shall prevail over Capco's self-serving and uncorroborated denial.[18] This presumption holds true for the police officers in this case, as Capco could not provide a credible and believable account on why he was being falsely accused.

PEOPLE v. ROLANDO LLAMADO Y CRUZ