Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. VS.JOEY TION Y CABADDU

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 200507 2013-06-26	PEOPLE v. PETER LINDA Y GEROLAGA PEREZ, J.
Here, we see no reason to deviate from the findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals. Corroborated by supporting documents,[18] PO2 Bernabe rendered a clear and direct narration of the details of the buy-bust operation from the moment SPO1 Rodolfo Ramos organized the team, upon receipt of the information from the confidential informant, to the time the shabu was marked[19] and turned over to the crime laboratory for examination.[20] Absent any showing of ill-motive or bad faith on the part of the arresting officers, as in this case where accused-appellant testified that he did not know any of the members of the team,[21] the doctrine of presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty finds application. This, we explained in People v. Tion:[22]
	GR No. 195777 2013-06-19	PEOPLE v. FERDINAND CASTRO Y LAPENA PEREZ, J.
Neither did the defense prove that there was ill-motive or bad faith on the part of the team to falsely impute upon him the commission of these grave offenses.[25] The doctrine of presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, therefore, applies. As explained in People v. Tion:[26]
	GR No. 182059 2012-07-04	PEOPLE v. CAMILO D. NICART PEREZ, J.
x x x [T]here is likewise no showing that the police officers framed up Joey. Unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or were not properly performing their duty, their testimonies on the buy-bust operation deserve full faith and credit. Settled is the rule that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, 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 or deviation from the regular performance of their duties. The records do not show any allegation of improper motive on the part of the buy-bust team. Thus, the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties of the police officers must be upheld.[21] (Emphasis supplied)
	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. 186392 2012-01-18	PEOPLE v. MARCOS SABADLAB Y NARCISO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In the recent case of People v. Tion, [24] this Court had the opportunity to discuss the weight given to testimonies of members of buy-bust teams in drug-related cases: Unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or were not properly performing their duty, their testimonies on the buy-bust operation deserve full faith and credit. Settled is the rule that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, 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 or deviation from the regular performance of their duties. x x x.[25]
	GR No. 178060 2011-02-23	PEOPLE v. ROMEO DANSICO Y MONAY BRION, J.
First, to convict an accused of illegal sale of marijuana, the prosecution must establish these essential elements: (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.[21]
	GR No. 191064 2010-10-20	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO ARANETA Y ABELLA MENDOZA, J.
We therefore stress that the "objective" test in buy-bust operations demands that the details of the purported transaction must be clearly and adequately shown. This must start from the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the consideration until the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of the sale. The manner by which the initial contact was made, whether or not through an informant, the offer to purchase the drug, the payment of the "buy-bust" money, and the delivery of the illegal drug, whether to the informant alone or the police officer, must be the subject of strict scrutiny by courts to insure that law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit an offense. Criminals must be caught but not at all cost. At the same time, however, examining the conduct of the police should not disable courts into ignoring the accused's predisposition to commit the crime. If there is overwhelming evidence of habitual delinquency, recidivism or plain criminal proclivity, then this must also be considered. Courts should look at all factors to determine the predisposition of an accused to commit an offense in so far as they are relevant to determine the validity of the defense of inducement.[6] [Emphasis supplied]
	GR No. 184952 2010-10-11	PEOPLE v. MARIANITO GONZAGA Y JOMAYA DEL CASTILLO, J.
We are likewise not impressed with the appellant's contention that the failure to present the marked money was fatal to the case against him. "The marked money used in the buy-bust operation is not indispensable in drug cases; it is merely corroborative evidence."[29] In prosecuting a case for the sale of dangerous drugs, the failure to present "marked money does not create a hiatus in the evidence for the prosecution as long as the sale of dangerous drugs is adequately proven and the drug subject of the transaction is presented before the court. Neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any money used in the buy-bust operation."[30]
	GR No. 188976 2010-06-29	PEOPLE v. JAKAR MAPAN LE Y SUBA VELASCO JR., J.
Likewise undeserving of credence is the allegation of frame-up. Accused-appellants did not present any evidence of extortion on the part of the buy-bust team. Neither were they able to show any effort in correcting a wrong supposedly committed against them by filing the appropriate administrative and criminal charges against the police officers who arrested them. Unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or were not properly performing their duty, their testimonies on the buy-bust operation deserve full faith and credit.[19] We therefore uphold the presumption that the members of the buy bust team performed their duties in a regular manner. Their testimonies as prosecution witnesses are entitled to full faith and credit.