Lawyerly

GR No. 198452

2014-02-19

PEREZ, J.

It is a fundamental rule that findings of the trial court which are factual in nature and which involve the credibility of witnesses are accorded with respect, more so, when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts, and speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. The reason behind this rule 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.[36] The rule finds an even more stringent application where the trial court's findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals.[37]

GR No. 194253

2013-02-27

PEOPLE v. MAGSALIN DIWA Y GUTIERREZ

PEREZ, J.

As found by the lower courts, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs: (1) the accused sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another and (2) knew that what was sold and delivered was a prohibited drug;[12] and illegal possession of dangerous drugs: (1) the accused is in possession of the object identified as a prohibited or regulatory drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.[13]

GR No. 187496

2013-02-06

PEOPLE v. MALIK MANALAO Y ALAUYA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

[29] People v. De Leon, G.R. No. 186471, January 25, 2010, 611 SCRA 118, 133.

GR No. 192261

2011-11-16

PEOPLE v. GARET SALCENA Y VICTORINO

MENDOZA, J.

Proof beyond reasonable doubt demands that unwavering exactitude be observed in establishing the corpus delicti the body of the crime whose core is the confiscated illicit drug.[33] Hence, every fact necessary to constitute the crime must be established. The chain of custody requirement performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.[34]

GR No. 186467

2011-07-13

PEOPLE v. JAIME GATLABAYAN Y BATARA

MENDOZA, J.

The narcotic substance itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction. It is therefore of prime importance that the identity of the dangerous drug be likewise established beyond reasonable doubt. [16] Otherwise stated, it must be proven with exactitude that the substance bought during the buy-bust operation is the same substance offered in evidence before the court. Thus, every fact necessary to constitute the offense must be established. The chain of custody requirement ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. [17]

GR No. 183676

2011-06-22

RUEL AMPATUAN 'ALIAS RUEL v. PEOPLE

PEREZ, J.

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. [24] In this jurisdiction, the operation is legal and has been proved to be an effective method of apprehending drug peddlers, provided that due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards is undertaken. [25]

GR No. 191392

2011-03-14

PEOPLE v. ROLLY SORIAGA Y STO. DOMINGO

MENDOZA, J.

"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. In this jurisdiction, the operation is legal and has been proved to be an effective method of apprehending drug peddlers, provided due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards is undertaken."[8]

GR No. 188847

2011-01-31

PEOPLE v. RUFINO VICENTE

VELASCO JR., J.

As previously held by this Court, Sec. 21 of RA 9165 need not be followed as an exact science. Non-compliance with Sec. 21 does not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible.[14] Non-compliance with the procedural requirements under RA 9165 and its IRR relative to the custody, photographing, and drug-testing of the apprehended persons is not a serious flaw that can render void the seizures and custody of drugs in a buy-bust operation.[15] We have thus emphasized that what is essential is "the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused."[16]

GR No. 186419

2010-04-23

PEOPLE v. DARLENE QUIGOD Y MIRANDA

VELASCO JR., J.

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.[27] In this jurisdiction, the operation is legal and has been proven to be an effective method of apprehending drug peddlers, provided due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards is undertaken.[28]

GR No. 186419

2010-04-23

PEOPLE v. DARLENE QUIGOD Y MIRANDA

VELASCO JR., J.

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.[27] In this jurisdiction, the operation is legal and has been proven to be an effective method of apprehending drug peddlers, provided due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards is undertaken.[28]

	GR No. 198452 2014-02-19	PEOPLE v. VICENTE ROM PEREZ, J.
It is a fundamental rule that findings of the trial court which are factual in nature and which involve the credibility of witnesses are accorded with respect, more so, when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts, and speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. The reason behind this rule 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.[36] The rule finds an even more stringent application where the trial court's findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals.[37]
	GR No. 194253 2013-02-27	PEOPLE v. MAGSALIN DIWA Y GUTIERREZ PEREZ, J.
As found by the lower courts, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs: (1) the accused sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another and (2) knew that what was sold and delivered was a prohibited drug;[12] and illegal possession of dangerous drugs: (1) the accused is in possession of the object identified as a prohibited or regulatory drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.[13]
	GR No. 187496 2013-02-06	PEOPLE v. MALIK MANALAO Y ALAUYA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
[29] People v. De Leon, G.R. No. 186471, January 25, 2010, 611 SCRA 118, 133.
	GR No. 192261 2011-11-16	PEOPLE v. GARET SALCENA Y VICTORINO MENDOZA, J.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt demands that unwavering exactitude be observed in establishing the corpus delicti the body of the crime whose core is the confiscated illicit drug.[33] Hence, every fact necessary to constitute the crime must be established. The chain of custody requirement performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.[34]
	GR No. 186467 2011-07-13	PEOPLE v. JAIME GATLABAYAN Y BATARA MENDOZA, J.
The narcotic substance itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction. It is therefore of prime importance that the identity of the dangerous drug be likewise established beyond reasonable doubt. [16] Otherwise stated, it must be proven with exactitude that the substance bought during the buy-bust operation is the same substance offered in evidence before the court. Thus, every fact necessary to constitute the offense must be established. The chain of custody requirement ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. [17]
	GR No. 183676 2011-06-22	RUEL AMPATUAN 'ALIAS RUEL v. PEOPLE PEREZ, J.
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. [24] In this jurisdiction, the operation is legal and has been proved to be an effective method of apprehending drug peddlers, provided that due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards is undertaken. [25]
	GR No. 191392 2011-03-14	PEOPLE v. ROLLY SORIAGA Y STO. DOMINGO MENDOZA, J.
"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. In this jurisdiction, the operation is legal and has been proved to be an effective method of apprehending drug peddlers, provided due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards is undertaken."[8]
	GR No. 188847 2011-01-31	PEOPLE v. RUFINO VICENTE VELASCO JR., J.
As previously held by this Court, Sec. 21 of RA 9165 need not be followed as an exact science. Non-compliance with Sec. 21 does not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible.[14] Non-compliance with the procedural requirements under RA 9165 and its IRR relative to the custody, photographing, and drug-testing of the apprehended persons is not a serious flaw that can render void the seizures and custody of drugs in a buy-bust operation.[15] We have thus emphasized that what is essential is "the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused."[16]
	GR No. 186419 2010-04-23	PEOPLE v. DARLENE QUIGOD Y MIRANDA VELASCO JR., J.
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.[27] In this jurisdiction, the operation is legal and has been proven to be an effective method of apprehending drug peddlers, provided due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards is undertaken.[28]
	GR No. 186419 2010-04-23	PEOPLE v. DARLENE QUIGOD Y MIRANDA VELASCO JR., J.
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.[27] In this jurisdiction, the operation is legal and has been proven to be an effective method of apprehending drug peddlers, provided due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards is undertaken.[28]

PEOPLE v. RODANTE DE LEON Y DELA ROSA