This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2013-06-13 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| Given the circumstances above, appellant's arrest cannot be considered illegal. Time and again, we have ruled that the arrest of the accused in flagrante during a buy-bust operation is justified under Rule 113, Section 5(a) of the Rules of Court.[56] From the very nature of a buy-bust operation, the absence of a warrant does not make the arrest illegal.[57] | |||||
|
2012-09-05 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The accused denied the charge against him, and alleged frame-up and planting of evidence by the police officers. In Quinicot v. People,[23] we held that allegations of frame-up by police officers are common and standard defenses in most dangerous drugs cases. For this claim to prosper, the defense must adduce clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that government officials have performed their duties in a regular and proper manner.[24] Here, the accused made a bare allegation without presenting clear and convincing evidence to support his claim. Felix and Max testified that they did not witness the incident between the accused and the police officers before the arrest.[25] Against the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the accused's plain denial of the offense charged, unsubstantiated by any credible and convincing evidence, must simply fail.[26] | |||||
|
2011-06-22 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation. [27] It is a fundamental rule that findings of the trial courts, which are factual in nature and which involve credibility, are accorded respect when no glaring errors; gross misapprehension of facts; or speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. The reason for this is that the trial court is in a better position to decide the credibility of witnesses, having heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals. [28] | |||||
|
2011-01-31 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation.[21] Oft-repeated is the rule that in cases involving violations of the Comprehensive 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.[22] Absent any indication that the police officers were ill-motivated in testifying against the accused, full credence should be given to their testimonies.[23] | |||||
|
2010-07-26 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In People v. Villamin,[15] involving an accused arrested after he sold drugs during a buy-bust operation, the Court ruled that it was a circumstance where a warrantless arrest is justified under Rule 113, Sec. 5(a) of the Rules of Court.[16] The same ruling applies to the instant case. When carried out with due regard for constitutional and legal safeguards, it is a judicially sanctioned method of apprehending those involved in illegal drug activities. It is a valid form of entrapment, as the idea to commit a crime comes not from the police officers but from the accused himself. The accused is caught in the act and must be apprehended on the spot. From the very nature of a buy-bust operation, the absence of a warrant does not make the arrest illegal.[17] | |||||