This case has been cited 25 times or more.
|
2014-08-18 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| In the absence of evidence that the prosecution witnesses were impelled by improper motive to testify falsely, appellant failed to overturn the presumption that the arresting officers regularly performed their duties. There is, therefore, no basis to suspect the veracity of their statements.[27] | |||||
|
2014-06-18 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The defenses of denial and frame-up have been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor for it can easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in prosecutions for violation of Dangerous Drugs Act. In order to prosper, the defenses of denial and frame-up must be proved with strong and convincing evidence. In the cases before us, appellant failed to present sufficient evidence in support of his claims. Aside from his self-serving assertions, no plausible proof was presented to bolster his allegations.[24] | |||||
|
2014-06-04 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| As to the accused-appellant's defenses of denial and alibi, it cannot prevail over the prosecution witnesses' positive testimonies, coupled with the physical evidence consistent with AAA's assertion that she was raped. The defense of denial has been invariably viewed by the Court with disfavor for it can easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in prosecutions for rape. In order to prosper, the defense of denial must be proved with strong and convincing evidence.[40] Alas, accused-appellant presented no such evidence in this case. | |||||
|
2013-11-27 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, accused-appellants' uncorroborated defenses of denial and frame-up cannot prevail over the prosecution witnesses' positive testimonies, coupled with the presentation in court by the prosecution of the corpus delicti. Prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation. Oft-repeated is the rule that in cases involving violations of Republic Act No. 9165, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers (or in this case, NBI agents) for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary. Absent any indication that the NBI agents herein were ill motivated in testifying against accused-appellants, their testimonies deserve full credence.[31] In contrast, the defenses of denial and frame-up have been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor for it can easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in prosecutions for violation of Republic Act No. 9165. In order to prosper, the defenses of denial and frame-up must be proved with strong and convincing evidence.[32] Accused-appellants presented no such evidence in this case. | |||||
|
2013-10-23 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, accused-appellants' uncorroborated defenses of denial and claims of frame-up cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti. The testimonies of police officers who caught the accused-appellants in flagrante delicto are usually credited with more weight and credence, in the absence of evidence that they have been inspired by an improper or ill motive, than the defenses of denial and frame-up of an accused which have been invariably viewed with disfavor for it can easily be concocted. In order to prosper, the defenses of denial and frame-up must be proved with strong and convincing evidence,[37] which accused-appellants failed to present in this case. | |||||
|
2013-09-25 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In addition, accused-appellant's defense of frame-up cannot prevail over the prosecution witnesses' positive testimonies on the conduct of a legitimate buy-bust operation against accused-appellant, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti. The testimonies of police officers, who caught accused-appellant in flagrante delicto, are usually credited with more weight and credence, in the absence of evidence that they have been inspired by an improper or ill motive, as compared to the accused's defenses of denial and frame-up, which have been invariably viewed with disfavor for the same can easily be concocted. In order to prosper, the defenses of denial and frame-up must be proved with strong and convincing evidence,[29] which accused-appellant failed to produce in this case. As aptly pointed out by both the RTC and the Court of Appeals, accused-appellant could have bolstered his defenses by presenting witnesses who could attest that he was, in fact, a "confidential informant" or an "asset" of the police, or who could corroborate the existence of Danny Contreras. Accused-appellant's assertion that all evidence to exculpate him is in the custody of the police is only too convenient and fails to convince the Court to waive away the requisite burden of evidence. There is absolute lack of reason or motive for the police, and even Judge Bagagñan, to turn against accused-appellant, an alleged police informant/asset, and launch a concerted and elaborate plan to put accused-appellant in jail. | |||||
|
2013-04-17 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In contrast, accused-appellant's defense of frame-up was doubtful and uncorroborated. The defenses of denial and frame-up have been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor for it can easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in prosecutions for violation of Republic Act No. 9165. In order to prosper, the defenses of denial and frame-up must be proved with strong and convincing evidence.[39] In the instant case, accused-appellant failed to present, other than his own testimony, sufficient evidence to support his claims. Bolosan did not see and was not able to testify on the actual buy-bust operation, which took place inside accused-appellant's room at Sexy Beach Resort, as Bolosan only witnessed the events taking place from outside the resort. | |||||
|
2013-02-06 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| De Jesus' defense theory, which is mainly of denial and frame-up are inherently weak and are not favored upon by the courts for being easily concocted. For such defenses to succeed they must be proven with strong and convincing evidence.[34] This, De Jesus failed to do. | |||||
|
2013-02-06 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| On the other hand, the accused's claim of being the victim of a vicious frame-up and extortion is unworthy of serious consideration. The fact that frame-up and extortion could be easily concocted renders such defenses hard to believe. Thus, although drug-related violators have commonly tendered such defenses to fend off or refute valid prosecutions of their drug-related violations, the Court has required that such defenses, to be credited at all, must be established with clear and convincing evidence.[14] But the accused did not adduce such evidence here, for all he put up were self-serving denials. Had the version of the Defense been what really transpired, there was no reason for the accused and his brother not to have formally charged the police officers with the severely penalized offense of planting of evidence under Section 29[15] of Republic Act No. 9165 and extortion. Thereby, the allegations of frame-up and extortion were rendered implausible. | |||||
|
2013-01-09 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[33] | |||||
|
2012-12-05 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In a prosecution for the sale of a dangerous drug, the following elements must be proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[29] Simply put, "[in] prosecutions for illegal sale of shabu, 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."[30] | |||||
|
2012-11-26 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| It should be noted that the alleged non-compliance with Section 21 of Article II of R.A. No. 9165 was not raised before the trial court but only for the first time on appeal. This cannot be done. In People v. Sta. Maria,[19] People v. Hernandez,[20] and People v. Lazaro, Jr.,[21] among others, in which the very same issue was belatedly raised, we ruled: x x x Indeed the police officers' alleged violations of Sections 21 and 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 were not raised before the trial court but were instead raised for the first time on appeal. In no instance did appellant least intimate at the trial court that there were lapses in the safekeeping of seized items that affected their integrity and evidentiary value. Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of objection. Without such objection, he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal. | |||||
|
2012-03-21 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| The credibility of witnesses is a matter best examined by, and left to, the trial courts. The time-tested doctrine is that the matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge. Unlike appellate magistrates, it is the judge who can weigh such testimonies in light of the witnesses' demeanor and manner of testifying, and who is in a unique position to discern between truth and falsehood. Thus, appellate courts will not disturb the credence, or lack of it, accorded by the trial court to the testimonies of witnesses. This is especially true when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court. For them the said findings are considered generally conclusive and binding upon this Court, [33] unless it be manifestly shown that the trial court had overlooked or arbitrarily disregarded facts and circumstances of significance.[34] Thus, we affirm the assailed Decision of the appellate court and uphold the conviction of the accused. | |||||
|
2012-02-29 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| As to the charge of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, People v. Lazaro, Jr.[57] provides that the elements thereof are: "(1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug." That the accused-appellant knowingly carried the illegal drug shabu without authority was likewise proven in this case. PO3 Arago and PO2 Memoracion both testified to the fact that after the latter effected the arrest of the accused-appellant, she was ordered to empty her pocket. When she did so, she produced another plastic sachet, which PO2 Memoracion marked as "RAM-2." The chemistry report of the forensic chemist P/Insp. De Guzman confirmed that the said sachet contained ten decigrams (0.10 grams) of shabu. | |||||
|
2012-02-29 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| For a police officer to frame her up, he must have known her prior to the incident. However, the informant had to introduce Ching to Mendoza before the sale of the shabu took place. Mendoza testified that she did not know Ching or the other police officers prior to her arrest.[43] Moreover, Mendoza herself admitted that not only should she be considered as part of the urban poor, but that she also had no means of income. Her very circumstance belies her claim that the police officers charged her with this crime because she refused to pay the P50,000.00 they were allegedly extorting from her. For such defenses to succeed, they must be proven with strong and convincing evidence.[44] Mendoza has not given this Court anything except her bare assertions. | |||||
|
2011-12-14 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The defenses of denial and frame-up have been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor for it can easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in prosecutions for violation of Dangerous Drugs Act. In order to prosper, the defenses of denial and frame-up must be proved with strong and convincing evidence. In the cases before us, appellant failed to present sufficient evidence in support of his claims. Aside from his self-serving assertions, no plausible proof was presented to bolster his allegations.[53] | |||||
|
2011-08-31 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| We view with disfavor the defenses of denial and frame-up. Like the defense of alibi, said defenses can easily be concocted and are common and standard defenses employed in prosecutions for violations of the Dangerous Drug Act.[24] For these defenses to prosper there must be clear and convincing evidence.[25] In this case, petitioner failed to adduce sufficient proof in support of his defenses. There is simply no evidence to bolster his defenses other than his self-serving assertions. Moreover, we note that the petitioner did not file any complaint for frame-up or extortion against the buy-bust team. Such inaction belies his claim of frame-up and that the police officers were extorting money from him. His allegations therefore are simply implausible. | |||||
|
2011-07-20 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The rule is that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect because trial courts have the advantage of observing the demeanor of the witnesses as they testify. This is more true if such findings were affirmed by the appellate court. When the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally binding upon this Court. [21] | |||||
|
2011-07-06 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Further, appellant did not attribute any ill-motive on the part of the police officers. The presumption of regularity in the performance of the police officers' official duties should prevail over the self-serving denial of appellant.[15] | |||||
|
2010-11-17 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Even assuming arguendo that there was no searching inquiry made, still the ascribed error will not grant relief to appellant for belatedly raising the issue for the first time on appeal.[23] And most importantly, the conviction of appellant was not made solely on his guilty plea--improvident or not--but on the evidence adduced by the prosecution proving beyond reasonable doubt appellant's culpability and liability for murder. Consequently, even if his plea of guilt during the pre-trial on March 4, 2003 be viewed as improvident, still appellant's conviction for murder stands as duly proved by the prosecution. Thus, the Court emphatically ruled in People v. Baun: Where the trial court receives evidence to determine precisely whether or not the accused has erred in admitting his guilt, the manner in which the plea of guilty is made (improvidently or not) loses legal significance, for the simple reason that the conviction is based on the evidence proving the commission by the accused of the offense charged.[24] (Emphasis supplied.) | |||||
|
2010-10-18 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Parenthetically, in illegal possession of dangerous drugs, such as shabu, the elements are: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.[15] Again, these elements are also present in this case. PO2 Jimenez testified that after the accused couple sold him shabu, when they emptied their pockets, two plastic sachets containing a white crystalline substance were recovered. These too were marked and submitted to the crime laboratory for analysis, and were found to contain shabu. PO2 Jimenez also identified the marked sachets in court as those recovered from accused-appellants. | |||||
|
2010-10-11 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Appellant's denial and allegation that he was a victim of frame-up by the arresting officers in their attempt to extort money in exchange for his freedom is implausible. We have invariably viewed with disfavor the defenses of denial and frame-up for such defenses can easily be fabricated and are common ploy in prosecutions for the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. In order to prosper, such defenses must be proved with strong and convincing evidence.[21] | |||||
|
2010-08-08 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The Court finds no compelling reason to reverse the findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals. Settled is the rule that the findings and conclusion of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect because the trial courts have the advantage of observing the demeanor of witnesses as they testify.[19] The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals as in this case.[20] | |||||
|
2010-02-17 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| To secure a conviction for illegal sale of shabu, the following essential 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 the payment thereof.[10] In prosecutions for illegal sale of shabu, 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.[11] | |||||
|
2009-12-23 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| As recently highlighted in People v. Cortez[32] and People v. Lazaro, Jr.,[33] RA 9165 and its subsequent Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) do not require strict compliance as to the chain of custody rule. The arrest of an accused will not be invalidated and the items seized from him rendered inadmissible on the sole ground of non-compliance with Sec. 21, Article II of RA 9165. We have emphasized that what is essential is "the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused." | |||||