This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2011-06-15 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Denial or frame up is a standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law. As such, it has been viewed by the court with disfavor for it can just as easily be concocted. [39] It should not accord a redoubtable sanctuary to a person accused of drug dealing unless the evidence of such frame up is clear and convincing. [40] Without proof of any intent on the part of the police officers to falsely impute appellant in the commission of a crime, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and the principle that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect, deserve to prevail over the bare denials and self-serving claims of appellant that he had been framed up. [41] Neither can appellant's claim of alleged extortion by the police operatives be entertained. Absent any proof, appellant's assertion of extortion allegedly committed by the police officers could not be successfully interposed. It remains one of those standard, worn-out, and impotent excuses of malefactors prosecuted for drug offenses. What appellant could have done was to prove his allegation and not just casually air it. [42] | |||||
|
2009-10-02 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| At any rate, we agree with the CA's observation that there was nothing unusual in drug transactions between strangers. Previous cases relating to dangerous drug violations, in fact, support this observation. A case in point would be our ruling in People v. Chua[54] where we said:xxx the law does not prescribe as an element of the crime that the vendor and vendee be familiar with each other. What matters in a drug related case is not the existing familiarity between the seller and the buyer, but their agreement and the acts constituting the same and delivery of the prohibited drugs... | |||||
|
2008-09-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Note that a buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment legally employed by peace officers as an effective way of apprehending drug dealers in the act of committing an offense. Such police operation has judicial sanction as long as it is carried out with due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards.[29] The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and the accused. 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 faith and credit.[30] | |||||
|
2007-07-27 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| Moreover, the failure of PO2 De Ocampo to recall immediately the markings on the buy-bust money only shows that he is an uncoached witness. Such momentary lapse in memory does not detract from the credibility of his testimony as to the essential details of the incident. As the trial court aptly found, PO2 De Ocampo was candid, forthright and categorical in his testimony: xxx . In the first place, this Court has had the untrammeled opportunity to observe the conduct and demeanor of poseur-buyer PO2 DE OCAMPO while testifying on the witness stand and definitely he was noted to testify in a candid, forthright and categorical manner which are the earmarks of a truthful and credible witness. The Court accords the highest degree of respect to the findings of the lower court as to appellant's guilt of the offenses charged against him, particularly where such findings are adequately supported by documentary as well as testimonial evidence. The same respect holds too, as regards the lower courts' evaluation on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. It is a settled policy of this Court, founded on reason and experience, to sustain the findings of fact of the trial court in criminal cases, on the rational assumption that it is in a better position to assess the evidence before it, having had the opportunity to make an honest determination of the witnesses' deportment during the trial.[16] | |||||
|
2007-03-07 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| In the present case, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not suffer from the same inherent incredibility, as in Pagaura. SPO4 Jamisolamin was accompanied by the informant who was familiar with the appellants. Furthermore, the night prior to the actual buy-bust operation, the informant and Jamisolamin had met with the appellants, successfully concluded a test-buy and agreed to meet again the following night for the sale of a larger quantity. A case more in point would be People v. Chua:[8] | |||||
|
2006-10-30 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In essence, what appellant puts at issue is the trial court's appreciation of factual details of the buy-bust operation or the entrapment. Suffice it to say that settled is the policy of this Court, founded on reason and experience, to sustain the factual findings of the trial court in criminal cases, on the rational assumption that it is in a better position to assess the evidence before it, having had the opportunity to make an honest determination of the witnesses' deportment during the trial.[14] In the instant case, we find no basis to disregard the trial court's factual findings. | |||||
|
2002-12-17 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| 1993.[60] Since there were no mitigating or aggravating circumstances attending appellants' violation of the law, and the aggregate quantity of shabu seized was 286.678 grams, reclusion perpetua is the penalty that may be imposed, pursuant to Article 63[61] of the Revised Penal Code. [62] WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the fine is increased to P500,000. Costs against appellants. | |||||
|
2002-09-24 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| P10,000,000. [60] Hence, in conformance to Article 63[61] of the Revised Penal Code, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed, since no mitigating or aggravating circumstances attended appellants' violation of the law.[62] WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED and the assailed Decision AFFIRMED. Costs against appellant. | |||||