Lawyerly

GR No. 177324

2011-03-30

PEOPLE v. REYNALD DELA CRUZ Y LIBANTOCIA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

It is equally settled 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.[34] Dela Cruz utterly failed to prove that in testifying against him, PO2 Ocampo was motivated by reasons other than the duty to curb the sale of prohibited drugs. There is no proof of any ill motive or odious intent on the part of the police authorities to impute falsely such a serious crime to Dela Cruz.[35]

GR No. 181249

2011-03-14

PEOPLE v. BAIDA SALAK Y BANGKULAS

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

In crimes involving the sale of illegal drugs, two essential elements must be satisfied: (1) identities of the buyer, the seller, the object and the consideration, and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it.[57] These elements were satisfactorily proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt through testimonial, documentary and object evidence presented during the trial.

GR No. 187741

2010-08-08

PEOPLE v. PETER M. CAMPOMANES

MENDOZA, J.

Thus, the Court will not disturb the findings of the trial court in assessing the credibility of the witnesses, unless some facts or circumstances of weight and influence have been overlooked or the significance of which has been misinterpreted by the trial court.[25] This arises from the fact that the lower courts are in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[26]

GR No. 169195

2010-02-17

FRANCISCO APARIS Y SANTOS v. PEOPLE

PERALTA, J.

The RTC, as upheld by the CA, found that the testimonies of PO3 Labrador, Police Inspector (P/Insp.) Gozar, and Senior Police Officer 1 (SPO1) Edwin Anaviso were unequivocal, definite and straightforward. More importantly, their testimonies were consistent in material respects with each other and with other testimonies and physical evidence. Time and again, the Court has ruled that the testimonies of witnesses need only to corroborate one another on material details surrounding the actual commission of the crime.[20] In the present case, what is essential is that the prosecution witnesses positively identified petitioner as the one who sold and delivered the shabu to PO3 Labrador. There is nothing on record that sufficiently casts doubt on the credibility of the police operatives.

GR No. 177148

2009-06-30

PEOPLE v. RAUL NUÑEZ Y REVILLEZA

QUISUMBING, J.

As regards the contradiction in the testimonies of SPO1 Ilagan and PO2 Ortega as to whether they picked up Chief Tanod Joaquin at the barangay hall, the same is inconsequential. After all, the witnesses' testimonies need only corroborate one another on material details surrounding the actual commission of the crime.[21]

GR No. 175326

2007-11-28

PEOPLE v. EDGARDO SANTIAGO Y GATDULA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The inconsistencies cited by appellants refer to trivial matters and are clearly beyond the elements of illegal sale of shabu because they do not pertain to the actual buy-bust itself - that crucial moment when appellants were caught selling shabu.[47] Besides, these inconsistencies even bolster the credibility of the prosecution witnesses as they erase any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony.[48]

GR No. 173790

2007-10-11

PEOPLE v. RUSSEL NAVARRO Y MARMOJADA

CARPIO MORALES, J.

Bare denials cannot prevail over the prosecution witnesses' positive identification of appellants as the persons who were in possession of the shabu, who delivered it to the poseur-buyer, and who received payment for it. The records clearly show that they were entrapped through a buy-bust operation. Their denial cannot prevail over the positive testimony of the police officers who had no reason or ill motive to testify falsely against them. As earlier adverted to, the officers' testimonies were consistent, unequivocal and replete with details of the transaction with appellants and, therefore, merit our full faith and credence.[15]

GR NO. 171578

2007-08-08

HERMINIO BUENAVENTURA Y RECTO v. PEOPLE

CARPIO MORALES, J.

With respect to illegal sale of marijuana, its essential elements are: (1) identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and the consideration; and (2) delivery of the thing sold and the payment.[9]

GR NO. 173795

2007-04-03

PEOPLE v. LOIDA R. SORIANO

TINGA, J.

The result of the laboratory examination confirmed the presence of methylamphetamine hydrochloride on the white crystalline substance inside the plastic sachet confiscated from appellants.[21] The report containing the findings of the forensic chemist, together with the plastic sachet of shabu subject of the sale, was admitted by the parties in the stipulation of facts.[22] The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummated the buy-bust transaction.[23] This was further corroborated by the presentation of the marked money in evidence.[24]

GR NO. 169141

2006-12-06

PEOPLE v. ROMEO DEL MUNDO Y STA. MARIA

TINGA, J.

x x x x[37] A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment whereby ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan.[38] The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummates the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and the accused.[39] 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 testimony on the operation deserves full faith and credit.[40]

GR NO. 168694

2006-11-27

PEOPLE v. SAIDAMIN MACABALANG Y MALAMAMA

TINGA, J.

For the successful prosecution of the illegal sale of shabu, the following 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 therefor. 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.[21] A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment whereby ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan.[22] The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction.[23]

GR Nos. 137458-59

2003-04-24

PEOPLE v. JESUS G. BATOCTOY

QUISUMBING, J.

Finally, the two agents could not even agree on the amount of the marked money. Agent Soriano testified that there were only five (5) 100-peso bills that were used as marked money[43] while Special Investigator Palencia declared that there were ten (10) marked bills.[44] They forgot, apparently, that one of the essential elements to be established in the prosecution of drug "buy-bust" cases is the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[45]

	GR No. 177324 2011-03-30	PEOPLE v. REYNALD DELA CRUZ Y LIBANTOCIA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
It is equally settled 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.[34] Dela Cruz utterly failed to prove that in testifying against him, PO2 Ocampo was motivated by reasons other than the duty to curb the sale of prohibited drugs. There is no proof of any ill motive or odious intent on the part of the police authorities to impute falsely such a serious crime to Dela Cruz.[35]
	GR No. 181249 2011-03-14	PEOPLE v. BAIDA SALAK Y BANGKULAS VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In crimes involving the sale of illegal drugs, two essential elements must be satisfied: (1) identities of the buyer, the seller, the object and the consideration, and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it.[57] These elements were satisfactorily proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt through testimonial, documentary and object evidence presented during the trial.
	GR No. 187741 2010-08-08	PEOPLE v. PETER M. CAMPOMANES MENDOZA, J.
Thus, the Court will not disturb the findings of the trial court in assessing the credibility of the witnesses, unless some facts or circumstances of weight and influence have been overlooked or the significance of which has been misinterpreted by the trial court.[25] This arises from the fact that the lower courts are in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[26]
	GR No. 169195 2010-02-17	FRANCISCO APARIS Y SANTOS v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
The RTC, as upheld by the CA, found that the testimonies of PO3 Labrador, Police Inspector (P/Insp.) Gozar, and Senior Police Officer 1 (SPO1) Edwin Anaviso were unequivocal, definite and straightforward. More importantly, their testimonies were consistent in material respects with each other and with other testimonies and physical evidence. Time and again, the Court has ruled that the testimonies of witnesses need only to corroborate one another on material details surrounding the actual commission of the crime.[20] In the present case, what is essential is that the prosecution witnesses positively identified petitioner as the one who sold and delivered the shabu to PO3 Labrador. There is nothing on record that sufficiently casts doubt on the credibility of the police operatives.
	GR No. 177148 2009-06-30	PEOPLE v. RAUL NUÑEZ Y REVILLEZA QUISUMBING, J.
As regards the contradiction in the testimonies of SPO1 Ilagan and PO2 Ortega as to whether they picked up Chief Tanod Joaquin at the barangay hall, the same is inconsequential. After all, the witnesses' testimonies need only corroborate one another on material details surrounding the actual commission of the crime.[21]
	GR No. 175326 2007-11-28	PEOPLE v. EDGARDO SANTIAGO Y GATDULA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The inconsistencies cited by appellants refer to trivial matters and are clearly beyond the elements of illegal sale of shabu because they do not pertain to the actual buy-bust itself - that crucial moment when appellants were caught selling shabu.[47] Besides, these inconsistencies even bolster the credibility of the prosecution witnesses as they erase any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony.[48]
	GR No. 173790 2007-10-11	PEOPLE v. RUSSEL NAVARRO Y MARMOJADA CARPIO MORALES, J.
Bare denials cannot prevail over the prosecution witnesses' positive identification of appellants as the persons who were in possession of the shabu, who delivered it to the poseur-buyer, and who received payment for it. The records clearly show that they were entrapped through a buy-bust operation. Their denial cannot prevail over the positive testimony of the police officers who had no reason or ill motive to testify falsely against them. As earlier adverted to, the officers' testimonies were consistent, unequivocal and replete with details of the transaction with appellants and, therefore, merit our full faith and credence.[15]
	GR NO. 171578 2007-08-08	HERMINIO BUENAVENTURA Y RECTO v. PEOPLE CARPIO MORALES, J.
With respect to illegal sale of marijuana, its essential elements are: (1) identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and the consideration; and (2) delivery of the thing sold and the payment.[9]
	GR NO. 173795 2007-04-03	PEOPLE v. LOIDA R. SORIANO TINGA, J.
The result of the laboratory examination confirmed the presence of methylamphetamine hydrochloride on the white crystalline substance inside the plastic sachet confiscated from appellants.[21] The report containing the findings of the forensic chemist, together with the plastic sachet of shabu subject of the sale, was admitted by the parties in the stipulation of facts.[22] The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummated the buy-bust transaction.[23] This was further corroborated by the presentation of the marked money in evidence.[24]
	GR NO. 169141 2006-12-06	PEOPLE v. ROMEO DEL MUNDO Y STA. MARIA TINGA, J.
x x x x[37] A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment whereby ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan.[38] The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummates the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and the accused.[39] 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 testimony on the operation deserves full faith and credit.[40]
	GR NO. 168694 2006-11-27	PEOPLE v. SAIDAMIN MACABALANG Y MALAMAMA TINGA, J.
For the successful prosecution of the illegal sale of shabu, the following 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 therefor. 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.[21] A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment whereby ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan.[22] The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction.[23]
	GR Nos. 137458-59 2003-04-24	PEOPLE v. JESUS G. BATOCTOY QUISUMBING, J.
Finally, the two agents could not even agree on the amount of the marked money. Agent Soriano testified that there were only five (5) 100-peso bills that were used as marked money[43] while Special Investigator Palencia declared that there were ten (10) marked bills.[44] They forgot, apparently, that one of the essential elements to be established in the prosecution of drug "buy-bust" cases is the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[45]

PEOPLE v. MILA RAZUL Y BASHIED