Lawyerly

GR No. 188571

2012-10-10

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

The defense utterly failed to prove any ill motive on PO2 Gatdula's part which would have spurred the police officer to falsely impute a serious crime against Brainer. Where there is nothing to indicate that the witnesses for the prosecution were moved by improper motives, the presumption is that they were not so moved, and that their testimony is entitled to full faith and credit.[31]

GR No. 173485

2011-11-23

PEOPLE v. NENITA LEGASPI Y LUCAS

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Taking a cue from the Court of Appeals, we shall first distinguish between entrapment and instigation. Entrapment is sanctioned by the law as a legitimate method of apprehending criminals. Its purpose is to trap and capture lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan. Instigation, on the other hand, involves the inducement of the would-be accused into the commission of the offense. In such a case, the instigators become co-principals themselves.[23]

GR No. 185284

2009-06-22

PEOPLE v. JASON SY

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

In the instant case, the Court finds that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses adequately establish these elements. The trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses must be accorded the highest respect, because it had the advantage of observing their demeanor and was thus in a better position to discern if they were telling the truth or not.[16] The Court has no reason to doubt the assessment of the trial court regarding the credibility of the prosecution and defense witnesses. The testimony of the buy-bust team established than an entrapment operation against accused-appellant was legitimately and successfully carried out on 3 December 2000, where accused-appellant was caught selling 987.32265 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. A scrutiny of the accounts of PO3 Ricardo Amontos, PO2 Christian Trambulo and Senior Inspector Culili, detailing how PO2 Trambulo negotiated, thru cellphone, with accused-appellant on the purchase price and the amount of shabu to be delivered, actual delivery of the shabu, the giving to the accused the marked and boodle money and the subsequent arrest of the accused show that these were testified to in a clear, straightforward manner. Their testimonies are further bolstered by the physical evidence consisting of the shabu presented as evidence before the court.

GR No. 182419

2009-02-10

PEOPLE v. WILFREDO ENCILA Y SUNGA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Accused-appellant's defense of denial and alibi deserves scant consideration when presented vis-a-vis the positive identification by poseur-buyer Ruben Potencion and back-up Richard Prior, who enjoy in their favor the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties. The defense of denial, like alibi, are viewed by the Court with disfavor, for it can just as easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. Bare denials cannot prevail over the direct and positive testimony of the witness pointing to accused as the perpetrator of the offense[42] and cannot overcome the presumption that the police officers performed their duties regularly.[43]

GR No. 181546

2008-09-03

PEOPLE v. RICARDO ALUNDAY

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

In challenging the existence of a legitimate buy-bust operation, appellant casts questionable, if not improper, motive on the part of the police officers. Unfortunately for appellant, jurisprudence instructs us that in cases involving illegal drugs, 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.[41] Where there is nothing to indicate that the witnesses for the prosecution were moved by improper motives, the presumption is that they were not so moved and their testimony, therefore, is entitled to full faith and credit.[42] In this case, the records are bereft of any indication which even remotely suggests ill motive on the part of the police officers. The following observations of the trial court are, indeed, appropriate, thus:Absent as it is in the record indications of personal interest or improper motive on their part to testify against the accused, the witnesses for the prosecution being government law enforcers and/or officials, actually present during the incident in question in the performance of their duties, are trustworthy sources. And the recollections in open court of such witnesses of the events that transpired on the occasion, given in clear and direct manner, corroborating and complimenting each other on material points, and highly probable in the natural order of things, are easy to believe and thus accorded full credence.

GR No. 178876

2008-06-27

PEOPLE v. ALFREDO CONCEPCION Y CLEMENTE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Jurisprudence has firmly entrenched the following as elements in the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs: (1) the accused sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another, and (2) he knew that what he had sold and delivered was a dangerous drug.[37] These two elements were clearly established in this case. The records show that appellants sold and delivered the shabu to the PDEA agent posing as a poseur-buyer. The plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance, which were seized and were found positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug, were identified and offered in evidence. There is also no question that appellants knew that what they were selling and delivering was shabu, a dangerous drug.

GR No. 174773

2007-10-02

PEOPLE v. MARILYN MIRANDA Y RAMA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Moreover, appellant failed to present any plausible reason or ill motive on the part of the arresting officers to falsely impute to her such a serious and unfounded charge.[26] From her testimony, it can easily be discerned that she did not know any one of the members of the buy-bust team who arrested her. She even referred to them as Mazo's "companions." This fact supports the Court of Appeals' holding that Then too, the rule is settled that the testimony of a law enforcer carries with it the presumption of regularity in the performance of his official functions. When a police officer has no motive for testifying falsely against the accused, courts are inclined to uphold the presumption of regularity in the performance of his duty. Here, no evidence whatsoever was presented which would suggest any improper motive on the part of PO1 Valenzuela. We must accord great respect to and treat with finality the findings of the trial court on the matter of his credibility.[27] We likewise find no merit in appellant's contention that the buy-bust operation was tainted with irregularity by the belated recording of the buy-bust money in the records of the police. It is settled that the recording of marked money used in a buy-bust operation is not one of the elements for the prosecution of sale of illegal drugs. The recording or non-recording thereof in an official record will not necessarily lead to an acquittal as long as the sale of the prohibited drug is adequately proven.[28]

GR NO. 175222

2007-07-27

PEOPLE v. RAMON QUIAOIT

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

In challenging the existence of a legitimate buy-bust operation, appellant casts questionable, if not improper, motive on the part of the police officers. Unfortunately for appellant, jurisprudence instructs us that in cases involving the sale of illegal drugs, 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.[22] Where there is nothing to indicate that the witnesses for the prosecution were moved by improper motives, the presumption is that they were not so moved and their testimony, therefore, is entitled to full faith and credit.[23] In this case, the records are bereft of any indication which even remotely suggests ill motive on the part of the police officers. The following observation of the Court of Appeals is indeed appropriate, thus: In this case, the policemen categorically identified Quiaoit as the one subject of the "buy-bust" operation who agreed to sell to PO1 Baquiran a sachet of "shabu" in front of the restroom of Golden Miles Beerhouse after he was being introduced by the informant. As police officers, PO1 Baquiran and PO2 Dueñas had in their favor the presumption of regularity of performance of duty. Furthermore, the defense failed to present any evidence to show that the police officers were improperly motivated to bear false witness against Quiaoit. While Quiaoit claimed that he was a former asset of the police and he knew the police officers who arrested him, yet, he did not impute any ill-motive as to why the police officers would implicate him to drug pushing. This fact bolsters the police officers' claim that Quiaoit was, indeed, arrested in a buy-bust operation.

GR No. 148822

2004-07-12

PEOPLE v. SAMROD PENDATUN Y KASAN

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

The presence of the seven appellants at the scene of the crime was not only established but the participation of each of the appellant in the aborted drug deal was clearly described and proved by the prosecution witnesses. Jurisprudence has firmly entrenched the following as elements in the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs: (1) the accused sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another, and (2) he knew that what he had sold and delivered was a dangerous drug.[5] These essential ingredients were duly proved in the case at bar. Appellants sold and delivered the shabu to the police officer posing as buyer. It was seized and identified as a prohibited drug and subsequently presented in evidence. Appellants were fully aware that they were selling and delivering a prohibited substance. They were all present when the plastic bag containing the prohibited substance was handed over to the poseur-buyer. Possession of dangerous drugs constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of a satisfactory explanation of such possession. Hence, the burden of evidence is shifted to the accused to explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi. In this respect, appellants' defense of denial withers in the face of the positive identification by PO2 De Leon who enjoys in his favor the presumption of regularity in the performance of his job.

GR No. 135378

2004-04-14

PEOPLE v. ANGELITO AMBROSIO Y CAMPOS

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

. . . courts generally give full faith and credit to officers of the law, for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner. Accordingly, in entrapment cases, credence is given to the narration of an incident by prosecution witnesses who are officers of the law and presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner in the absence of evidence to the contrary.[58]

GR No. 135378

2004-04-14

PEOPLE v. ANGELITO AMBROSIO Y CAMPOS

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

. . . courts generally give full faith and credit to officers of the law, for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner. Accordingly, in entrapment cases, credence is given to the narration of an incident by prosecution witnesses who are officers of the law and presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner in the absence of evidence to the contrary.[58]

GR No. 146100

2002-11-13

PEOPLE v. JOHNNY LOTERONO

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

received with caution, not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable, but also because it can be fabricated easily."[37] Suffice it to state in this regard that the positive identification of the accused, when categorical and consistent without any ill motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses, prevails over alibi and denial which are negative, self-serving and undeserving of weight in law.[38] All told, the Court finds no reason to reverse the ruling of the court a quo insofar as the crime was committed. The core issue raised by accused-appellant centers on the credibility of witnesses. The doctrinal rule is that findings of fact made by the trial court, which had

GR No. 147348

2002-09-24

PEOPLE v. MICHAEL SY

PANGANIBAN, J.

uncorroborated claim of frame-up.[45] With nothing to substantiate such malicious accusation, credence shall be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses because, being police officers, they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner.[46] Certainly, the presumption of regularity must prevail over appellants' unfounded allegations.[47] Verily, this Court has held in numerous cases that entrapment is sanctioned by law as a legitimate method of apprehending criminal elements engaged in the sale and distribution of illegal drugs.[48]

	GR No. 188571 2012-10-10	PEOPLE v. MARICAR BRAINER Y MANGULABNAN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The defense utterly failed to prove any ill motive on PO2 Gatdula's part which would have spurred the police officer to falsely impute a serious crime against Brainer. Where there is nothing to indicate that the witnesses for the prosecution were moved by improper motives, the presumption is that they were not so moved, and that their testimony is entitled to full faith and credit.[31]
	GR No. 173485 2011-11-23	PEOPLE v. NENITA LEGASPI Y LUCAS LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Taking a cue from the Court of Appeals, we shall first distinguish between entrapment and instigation. Entrapment is sanctioned by the law as a legitimate method of apprehending criminals. Its purpose is to trap and capture lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan. Instigation, on the other hand, involves the inducement of the would-be accused into the commission of the offense. In such a case, the instigators become co-principals themselves.[23]
	GR No. 185284 2009-06-22	PEOPLE v. JASON SY CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In the instant case, the Court finds that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses adequately establish these elements. The trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses must be accorded the highest respect, because it had the advantage of observing their demeanor and was thus in a better position to discern if they were telling the truth or not.[16] The Court has no reason to doubt the assessment of the trial court regarding the credibility of the prosecution and defense witnesses. The testimony of the buy-bust team established than an entrapment operation against accused-appellant was legitimately and successfully carried out on 3 December 2000, where accused-appellant was caught selling 987.32265 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. A scrutiny of the accounts of PO3 Ricardo Amontos, PO2 Christian Trambulo and Senior Inspector Culili, detailing how PO2 Trambulo negotiated, thru cellphone, with accused-appellant on the purchase price and the amount of shabu to be delivered, actual delivery of the shabu, the giving to the accused the marked and boodle money and the subsequent arrest of the accused show that these were testified to in a clear, straightforward manner. Their testimonies are further bolstered by the physical evidence consisting of the shabu presented as evidence before the court.
	GR No. 182419 2009-02-10	PEOPLE v. WILFREDO ENCILA Y SUNGA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Accused-appellant's defense of denial and alibi deserves scant consideration when presented vis-a-vis the positive identification by poseur-buyer Ruben Potencion and back-up Richard Prior, who enjoy in their favor the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties. The defense of denial, like alibi, are viewed by the Court with disfavor, for it can just as easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. Bare denials cannot prevail over the direct and positive testimony of the witness pointing to accused as the perpetrator of the offense[42] and cannot overcome the presumption that the police officers performed their duties regularly.[43]
	GR No. 181546 2008-09-03	PEOPLE v. RICARDO ALUNDAY CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In challenging the existence of a legitimate buy-bust operation, appellant casts questionable, if not improper, motive on the part of the police officers. Unfortunately for appellant, jurisprudence instructs us that in cases involving illegal drugs, 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.[41] Where there is nothing to indicate that the witnesses for the prosecution were moved by improper motives, the presumption is that they were not so moved and their testimony, therefore, is entitled to full faith and credit.[42] In this case, the records are bereft of any indication which even remotely suggests ill motive on the part of the police officers. The following observations of the trial court are, indeed, appropriate, thus:Absent as it is in the record indications of personal interest or improper motive on their part to testify against the accused, the witnesses for the prosecution being government law enforcers and/or officials, actually present during the incident in question in the performance of their duties, are trustworthy sources. And the recollections in open court of such witnesses of the events that transpired on the occasion, given in clear and direct manner, corroborating and complimenting each other on material points, and highly probable in the natural order of things, are easy to believe and thus accorded full credence.
	GR No. 178876 2008-06-27	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO CONCEPCION Y CLEMENTE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Jurisprudence has firmly entrenched the following as elements in the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs: (1) the accused sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another, and (2) he knew that what he had sold and delivered was a dangerous drug.[37] These two elements were clearly established in this case. The records show that appellants sold and delivered the shabu to the PDEA agent posing as a poseur-buyer. The plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance, which were seized and were found positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug, were identified and offered in evidence. There is also no question that appellants knew that what they were selling and delivering was shabu, a dangerous drug.
	GR No. 174773 2007-10-02	PEOPLE v. MARILYN MIRANDA Y RAMA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Moreover, appellant failed to present any plausible reason or ill motive on the part of the arresting officers to falsely impute to her such a serious and unfounded charge.[26] From her testimony, it can easily be discerned that she did not know any one of the members of the buy-bust team who arrested her. She even referred to them as Mazo's "companions." This fact supports the Court of Appeals' holding that Then too, the rule is settled that the testimony of a law enforcer carries with it the presumption of regularity in the performance of his official functions. When a police officer has no motive for testifying falsely against the accused, courts are inclined to uphold the presumption of regularity in the performance of his duty. Here, no evidence whatsoever was presented which would suggest any improper motive on the part of PO1 Valenzuela. We must accord great respect to and treat with finality the findings of the trial court on the matter of his credibility.[27] We likewise find no merit in appellant's contention that the buy-bust operation was tainted with irregularity by the belated recording of the buy-bust money in the records of the police. It is settled that the recording of marked money used in a buy-bust operation is not one of the elements for the prosecution of sale of illegal drugs. The recording or non-recording thereof in an official record will not necessarily lead to an acquittal as long as the sale of the prohibited drug is adequately proven.[28]
	GR NO. 175222 2007-07-27	PEOPLE v. RAMON QUIAOIT CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In challenging the existence of a legitimate buy-bust operation, appellant casts questionable, if not improper, motive on the part of the police officers. Unfortunately for appellant, jurisprudence instructs us that in cases involving the sale of illegal drugs, 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.[22] Where there is nothing to indicate that the witnesses for the prosecution were moved by improper motives, the presumption is that they were not so moved and their testimony, therefore, is entitled to full faith and credit.[23] In this case, the records are bereft of any indication which even remotely suggests ill motive on the part of the police officers. The following observation of the Court of Appeals is indeed appropriate, thus: In this case, the policemen categorically identified Quiaoit as the one subject of the "buy-bust" operation who agreed to sell to PO1 Baquiran a sachet of "shabu" in front of the restroom of Golden Miles Beerhouse after he was being introduced by the informant. As police officers, PO1 Baquiran and PO2 Dueñas had in their favor the presumption of regularity of performance of duty. Furthermore, the defense failed to present any evidence to show that the police officers were improperly motivated to bear false witness against Quiaoit. While Quiaoit claimed that he was a former asset of the police and he knew the police officers who arrested him, yet, he did not impute any ill-motive as to why the police officers would implicate him to drug pushing. This fact bolsters the police officers' claim that Quiaoit was, indeed, arrested in a buy-bust operation.
	GR No. 148822 2004-07-12	PEOPLE v. SAMROD PENDATUN Y KASAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The presence of the seven appellants at the scene of the crime was not only established but the participation of each of the appellant in the aborted drug deal was clearly described and proved by the prosecution witnesses. Jurisprudence has firmly entrenched the following as elements in the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs: (1) the accused sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another, and (2) he knew that what he had sold and delivered was a dangerous drug.[5] These essential ingredients were duly proved in the case at bar. Appellants sold and delivered the shabu to the police officer posing as buyer. It was seized and identified as a prohibited drug and subsequently presented in evidence. Appellants were fully aware that they were selling and delivering a prohibited substance. They were all present when the plastic bag containing the prohibited substance was handed over to the poseur-buyer. Possession of dangerous drugs constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of a satisfactory explanation of such possession. Hence, the burden of evidence is shifted to the accused to explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi. In this respect, appellants' defense of denial withers in the face of the positive identification by PO2 De Leon who enjoys in his favor the presumption of regularity in the performance of his job.
	GR No. 135378 2004-04-14	PEOPLE v. ANGELITO AMBROSIO Y CAMPOS AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
. . . courts generally give full faith and credit to officers of the law, for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner. Accordingly, in entrapment cases, credence is given to the narration of an incident by prosecution witnesses who are officers of the law and presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner in the absence of evidence to the contrary.[58]
	GR No. 135378 2004-04-14	PEOPLE v. ANGELITO AMBROSIO Y CAMPOS AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
. . . courts generally give full faith and credit to officers of the law, for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner. Accordingly, in entrapment cases, credence is given to the narration of an incident by prosecution witnesses who are officers of the law and presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner in the absence of evidence to the contrary.[58]
	GR No. 146100 2002-11-13	PEOPLE v. JOHNNY LOTERONO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
received with caution, not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable, but also because it can be fabricated easily."[37] Suffice it to state in this regard that the positive identification of the accused, when categorical and consistent without any ill motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses, prevails over alibi and denial which are negative, self-serving and undeserving of weight in law.[38] All told, the Court finds no reason to reverse the ruling of the court a quo insofar as the crime was committed. The core issue raised by accused-appellant centers on the credibility of witnesses. The doctrinal rule is that findings of fact made by the trial court, which had
	GR No. 147348 2002-09-24	PEOPLE v. MICHAEL SY PANGANIBAN, J.
uncorroborated claim of frame-up.[45] With nothing to substantiate such malicious accusation, credence shall be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses because, being police officers, they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner.[46] Certainly, the presumption of regularity must prevail over appellants' unfounded allegations.[47] Verily, this Court has held in numerous cases that entrapment is sanctioned by law as a legitimate method of apprehending criminal elements engaged in the sale and distribution of illegal drugs.[48]

PEOPLE v. ROBERTO MENDOZA PACIS