Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

GWYN QUINICOT Y CURATIVO v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 188707 2014-07-30	PEOPLE v. MANUELITA AMPATUAN Y GONZALES PEREZ, J.
Furthermore, the defense's mere denial of the charges and allegations of instigation and frame-up cannot prevail over the clear and unequivocal pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution. We are not unaware of the common defenses of frame-up or instigation by police officers in illegal drugs cases. However, because instigation and frame-up as a defense can easily be concocted and fabricated, they are given little evidentiary value.[12]
	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.
Appellant claims that he was a victim of a frame up. However, he failed to substantiate his claim. The witnesses presented by the defense were not able to positively affirm that illegal drugs were planted on appellant by the police officers when they testified that "they saw someone place something inside appellant's jacket." In Quinicot v. People,[13] we held that allegations of frame-up and extortion by police officers are common and standard defenses in most dangerous drugs cases. They are viewed by the Court with disfavor, for such defenses can easily be concocted and fabricated.
	GR No. 177771 2011-05-30	PEOPLE v. ARIELITO ALIVIO Y OLIVEROS BRION, J.
In any event, in Gwyn Quinicot v. People,[21] we held that it is not the existing familiarity between the seller and the buyer, but the agreement and acts constituting the sale and delivery of the illegal drugs, that is crucial in drug-related cases: What matters in drug related cases is not the existing familiarity between the seller and the buyer, but their agreement and the acts constituting the sale and delivery of the dangerous drug. Besides, drug pushers, especially small quantity or retail pushers, sell their prohibited wares to anyone who can pay for the same, be they strangers or not. It is of common knowledge that pushers, especially small-time dealers, peddle prohibited drugs in the open like any article of commerce. Drug pushers do no confine their nefarious trade to known customers and complete strangers are accommodated provided they have the money to pay.[22] [Citations omitted]
	GR No. 188608 2011-02-09	PEOPLE v. RONALDO MORALES Y FLORES PEREZ, J.
The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.[22]
	GR No. 189806 2011-01-12	PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO MANLANGIT Y TRESBALLES VELASCO JR., J.
Settled is the rule that the absence of a prior surveillance or test buy does not affect the legality of the buy-bust operation. There is no textbook method of conducting buy-bust operations. The Court has left to the discretion of police authorities the selection of effective means to apprehend drug dealers. A prior surveillance, much less a lengthy one, is not necessary, especially where the police operatives are accompanied by their informant during the entrapment. Flexibility is a trait of good police work. We have held that when time is of the essence, the police may dispense with the need for prior surveillance. In the instant case, having been accompanied by the informant to the person who was peddling the dangerous drugs, the policemen need not have conducted any prior surveillance before they undertook the buy-bust operation.[14] (Emphasis supplied.)
	GR No. 169195 2010-02-17	FRANCISCO APARIS Y SANTOS v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
Flexibility is a trait of good police work. The court has held that when time is of the essence, the police may dispense with the need for prior surveillance.[21] Moreover, prior surveillance is not necessary, especially where the police operatives are accompanied by their informant during the entrapment.[22] In the instant case, the entrapment or buy-bust operation was conducted without the necessity of any prior surveillance because the informant, who was previously tasked by PO3 Labrador to deal with petitioner's assistant, accompanied the team and PO3 Labrador himself when the latter bought shabu from petitioner. To be sure, there is no textbook method of conducting buy-bust operations. The Court has left to the discretion of police authorities the selection of effective means to apprehend drug dealers. Thus, the Court has refused to establish on a priori basis what detailed acts the police authorities might credibly undertake in their entrapment operations.[23]
	GR No. 185011 2009-12-23	PEOPLE v. SPO3 SANGKI ARA Y MIRASOL VELASCO JR., J.
Owing to the special circumstances surrounding the drug trade, a buy-bust operation has long been held as a legitimate method of catching offenders. It is a form of entrapment employed as an effective way of apprehending a criminal in the act of commission of an offense.[15] We have ruled that a buy-bust operation can be carried out after a long period of planning. The period of planning for such operation cannot be dictated to the police authorities who are to undertake such operation.[16] It is unavailing then to argue that the operatives had to first secure a warrant of arrest given that the objective of the operation was to apprehend the accused-appellants in flagrante delicto. In fact, one of the situations covered by a lawful warrantless arrest under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court is when a person has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense in the presence of a peace officer or private person.