Lawyerly

GR No. 207988

2015-03-11

PEREZ, J.

In fine, considering the pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution, the denial and allegation of extortion of the accused-appellant fails. Courts generally view the defense of denial with disfavor due to the facility with which an accused can concoct it to suit his or her defense. As evidence that is both negative and self-serving, this defense cannot attain more credibility than the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who testify clearly, providing thereby positive evidence on the various aspects of the crime committed.[35] Consequently, we find no cogent reason to disturb the decisions of the RTC and the CA. Accused-appellant Bryan Mercado y Sarmiento is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.

GR No. 204589

2014-11-19

RIZALDY SANCHEZ Y CAJILI v. PEOPLE

MENDOZA, J.

For warrantless arrest under paragraph (a) of Section 5 (in flagrante delicto arrest) to operate, two elements must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.[27] On the other hand, paragraph (b) of Section 5 (arrest effected in hot pursuit) requires for its application that at the time of the arrest, an offense has in fact just been committed and the arresting officer has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be apprehended has committed it. These elements would be lacking in the case at bench.

GR No. 204911

2014-08-06

PEOPLE v. MIKE STEVE Y BASMAN

PEREZ, J.

By way of resume, although this Court finds that the police officers did not strictly comply with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, such noncompliance did not affect the evidentiary weight of the drug seized from the accused-appellants because the chain of custody of the evidence was shown to be unbroken under the circumstances of the case. Similarly, Section 86 of R.A. No. 9165 is silent as to the consequence of failure to comply therewith; hence, the same shall not be considered as a sole ground to make an arrest without the participation of the PDEA illegal or evidence obtained pursuant to such an arrest inadmissible. Note that the subject drug confiscated from the accused-appellants was properly accounted for and forthrightly submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory for its extensive examination. Consequently, considering the pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution, the mere denial of and the allegation of a frame-up by accused-appellants should fail. As correctly pointed out by the appellate court, the defense of frame-up in drug cases requires strong and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that the law enforcement agencies acted in the regular performance of their official duties. On the other hand, courts generally view the defense of denial with disfavor due to the facility with which an accused can concoct it to suit his or her defense. As evidence that is both negative and self-serving, this defense cannot attain more credibility than the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who testify clearly, providing thereby positive evidence on the various aspects of the crime committed.[28]

GR No. 201725

2014-07-18

PEOPLE v. JOY ALCALA Y NOVILLA

PEREZ, J.

In fine, considering the pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution, the denial of the accused fails. Courts generally view the defense of denial with disfavor due to the facility with which an accused can concoct it to suit his or her defense. As evidence that is both negative and self-serving, this defense cannot attain more credibility than the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who testify clearly, providing thereby positive evidence on the various aspects of the crime committed.[31]

GR No. 196146

2014-03-12

PEOPLE v. FREDDIE LADIP Y RUBIO

PEREZ, J.

In fine, considering the pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution, the denial of the accused-appellant fails. Courts generally view the defense of denial with disfavor due to the facility with which an accused can concoct it to suit his or her defense. As evidence that is both negative and self-serving, this defense cannot attain more credibility than the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who testify clearly, providing thereby positive evidence on the various aspects of the crime committed.[39]

GR No. 180661

2013-12-11

GEORGE ANTIQUERA Y CODES v. PEOPLE

ABAD, J.

Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that a "peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense." This is an arrest in flagrante delicto.[13] The overt act constituting the crime is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.[14]

GR No. 196973

2013-07-31

PEOPLE v. RUPER POSING Y ALAYON

PEREZ, J.

In fine, considering the pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution, the denial of the accused-appellant fails. Courts generally view the defense of denial with disfavor due to the facility with which an accused can concoct it to suit his or her defense. As evidence that is both negative and self-serving, this defense cannot attain more credibility than the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who testify clearly, providing thereby positive evidence on the various aspects of the crime committed.[44]

GR No. 191193

2012-11-14

PEOPLE v. GODOFREDO MARIANO Y FELICIANO

PEREZ, J.

Godofredo was further charged and convicted of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia. The elements of illegal possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs under Section 12, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 are: (1) possession or control by the accused of any equipment, apparatus or other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body; and (2) such possession is not authorized by law.[24]

GR No. 190342

2012-03-21

PEOPLE v. CIPRIANO CARDENAS Y GOFRERICA

SERENO, J.

Although we find that the police officers did not strictly comply with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of the IRR implementing R.A. 9165, the noncompliance did not affect the evidentiary weight of the drugs seized from the accused, because the chain of custody of the evidence was shown to be unbroken under the circumstances of the case. We held thus in Zalameda v. People of the Philippines[32]: Jurisprudence teems with pronouncements that failure to strictly comply with Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 does not necessarily render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as these would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. In the present case, we see substantial compliance by the police with the required procedure on the custody and control of the confiscated items, thus showing that the integrity of the seized evidence was not compromised. We refer particularly to the succession of events established by evidence, to the overall handling of the seized items by specified individuals, to the test results obtained, under a situation where no objection to admissibility was ever raised by the defense. All these, to the unprejudiced mind, show that the evidence seized were the same evidence tested and subsequently identified and testified to in court. In People v. Del Monte, we explained:

GR No. 187157

2012-02-15

PEOPLE v. ARNEL CLARITE Y SALAZAR

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

In cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers on the ground that they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner. The exception is when 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.[20] In the case at bar, accused-appellant's only evidence of ill motive on the part of the NBI operatives is his own testimony of frame-up and extortion, a very common defense in dangerous drugs cases. We have held that such defense is viewed with disfavor, for it can be easily concocted. To substantiate such a defense, therefore, the evidence must be clear and convincing.[21]

GR No. 169195

2010-02-17

FRANCISCO APARIS Y SANTOS v. PEOPLE

PERALTA, J.

For his part, petitioner could not offer any viable defense except to deny that there was a buy-bust operation and to claim that he was, instead, a victim of frame-up and extortion by the police officers. However, like alibi, the defenses of denial and frame-up are viewed by the Court with disfavor, as these can easily be concocted and are commonly used as standard lines of defense in most prosecutions arising from illegal sale of drugs.[24] Moreover, for the claim of frame-up to prosper, the defense must present clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that the arresting policemen performed their duties in a regular and proper manner.[25] This, petitioner failed to do.

	GR No. 207988 2015-03-11	PEOPLE v. BRIAN MERCADO Y SARMIENTO PEREZ, J.
In fine, considering the pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution, the denial and allegation of extortion of the accused-appellant fails. Courts generally view the defense of denial with disfavor due to the facility with which an accused can concoct it to suit his or her defense. As evidence that is both negative and self-serving, this defense cannot attain more credibility than the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who testify clearly, providing thereby positive evidence on the various aspects of the crime committed.[35] Consequently, we find no cogent reason to disturb the decisions of the RTC and the CA. Accused-appellant Bryan Mercado y Sarmiento is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
	GR No. 204589 2014-11-19	RIZALDY SANCHEZ Y CAJILI v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
For warrantless arrest under paragraph (a) of Section 5 (in flagrante delicto arrest) to operate, two elements must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.[27] On the other hand, paragraph (b) of Section 5 (arrest effected in hot pursuit) requires for its application that at the time of the arrest, an offense has in fact just been committed and the arresting officer has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be apprehended has committed it. These elements would be lacking in the case at bench.
	GR No. 204911 2014-08-06	PEOPLE v. MIKE STEVE Y BASMAN PEREZ, J.
By way of resume, although this Court finds that the police officers did not strictly comply with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, such noncompliance did not affect the evidentiary weight of the drug seized from the accused-appellants because the chain of custody of the evidence was shown to be unbroken under the circumstances of the case. Similarly, Section 86 of R.A. No. 9165 is silent as to the consequence of failure to comply therewith; hence, the same shall not be considered as a sole ground to make an arrest without the participation of the PDEA illegal or evidence obtained pursuant to such an arrest inadmissible. Note that the subject drug confiscated from the accused-appellants was properly accounted for and forthrightly submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory for its extensive examination. Consequently, considering the pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution, the mere denial of and the allegation of a frame-up by accused-appellants should fail. As correctly pointed out by the appellate court, the defense of frame-up in drug cases requires strong and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that the law enforcement agencies acted in the regular performance of their official duties. On the other hand, courts generally view the defense of denial with disfavor due to the facility with which an accused can concoct it to suit his or her defense. As evidence that is both negative and self-serving, this defense cannot attain more credibility than the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who testify clearly, providing thereby positive evidence on the various aspects of the crime committed.[28]
	GR No. 201725 2014-07-18	PEOPLE v. JOY ALCALA Y NOVILLA PEREZ, J.
In fine, considering the pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution, the denial of the accused fails. Courts generally view the defense of denial with disfavor due to the facility with which an accused can concoct it to suit his or her defense. As evidence that is both negative and self-serving, this defense cannot attain more credibility than the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who testify clearly, providing thereby positive evidence on the various aspects of the crime committed.[31]
	GR No. 196146 2014-03-12	PEOPLE v. FREDDIE LADIP Y RUBIO PEREZ, J.
In fine, considering the pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution, the denial of the accused-appellant fails. Courts generally view the defense of denial with disfavor due to the facility with which an accused can concoct it to suit his or her defense. As evidence that is both negative and self-serving, this defense cannot attain more credibility than the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who testify clearly, providing thereby positive evidence on the various aspects of the crime committed.[39]
	GR No. 180661 2013-12-11	GEORGE ANTIQUERA Y CODES v. PEOPLE ABAD, J.
Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that a "peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense." This is an arrest in flagrante delicto.[13] The overt act constituting the crime is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.[14]
	GR No. 196973 2013-07-31	PEOPLE v. RUPER POSING Y ALAYON PEREZ, J.
In fine, considering the pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution, the denial of the accused-appellant fails. Courts generally view the defense of denial with disfavor due to the facility with which an accused can concoct it to suit his or her defense. As evidence that is both negative and self-serving, this defense cannot attain more credibility than the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who testify clearly, providing thereby positive evidence on the various aspects of the crime committed.[44]
	GR No. 191193 2012-11-14	PEOPLE v. GODOFREDO MARIANO Y FELICIANO PEREZ, J.
Godofredo was further charged and convicted of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia. The elements of illegal possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs under Section 12, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 are: (1) possession or control by the accused of any equipment, apparatus or other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body; and (2) such possession is not authorized by law.[24]
	GR No. 190342 2012-03-21	PEOPLE v. CIPRIANO CARDENAS Y GOFRERICA SERENO, J.
Although we find that the police officers did not strictly comply with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of the IRR implementing R.A. 9165, the noncompliance did not affect the evidentiary weight of the drugs seized from the accused, because the chain of custody of the evidence was shown to be unbroken under the circumstances of the case. We held thus in Zalameda v. People of the Philippines[32]: Jurisprudence teems with pronouncements that failure to strictly comply with Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 does not necessarily render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as these would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. In the present case, we see substantial compliance by the police with the required procedure on the custody and control of the confiscated items, thus showing that the integrity of the seized evidence was not compromised. We refer particularly to the succession of events established by evidence, to the overall handling of the seized items by specified individuals, to the test results obtained, under a situation where no objection to admissibility was ever raised by the defense. All these, to the unprejudiced mind, show that the evidence seized were the same evidence tested and subsequently identified and testified to in court. In People v. Del Monte, we explained:
	GR No. 187157 2012-02-15	PEOPLE v. ARNEL CLARITE Y SALAZAR LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers on the ground that they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner. The exception is when 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.[20] In the case at bar, accused-appellant's only evidence of ill motive on the part of the NBI operatives is his own testimony of frame-up and extortion, a very common defense in dangerous drugs cases. We have held that such defense is viewed with disfavor, for it can be easily concocted. To substantiate such a defense, therefore, the evidence must be clear and convincing.[21]
	GR No. 169195 2010-02-17	FRANCISCO APARIS Y SANTOS v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
For his part, petitioner could not offer any viable defense except to deny that there was a buy-bust operation and to claim that he was, instead, a victim of frame-up and extortion by the police officers. However, like alibi, the defenses of denial and frame-up are viewed by the Court with disfavor, as these can easily be concocted and are commonly used as standard lines of defense in most prosecutions arising from illegal sale of drugs.[24] Moreover, for the claim of frame-up to prosper, the defense must present clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that the arresting policemen performed their duties in a regular and proper manner.[25] This, petitioner failed to do.

GILBERT ZALAMEDA v. PEOPLE