Lawyerly

GR No. 189812

2014-09-01

DEL CASTILLO, J.

The Court acknowledges that "[p]rosecutions for illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation."[26] In this case, the credibility of the prosecution witnesses cannot be doubted. Aside from the fact that both lower courts are one in finding that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were direct and definite, the said testimonies are also consistent with each other and with the physical evidence. Besides, "the trial court's determination on the issue of credibility of witnesses and its consequent findings of facts must be given great weight and respect on appeal x x x. This is so because of the judicial experience that trial courts are in a better position to decide the question of credibility, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during trial."[27]

GR No. 181541

2014-08-18

PEOPLE v. MARISSA MARCELO

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Appellant's defenses of denial and frame-up do not deserve credence. Denial cannot prevail over the positive testimony of prosecution witnesses.[24] On the other hand, frame-up is viewed with disfavor since it can easily be fabricated and is a common ploy in prosecution for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Law. For this defense to prosper, it must be proved with clear and convincing evidence. There must also be evidence that the police officers were inspired by improper motive.[25]

GR No. 190621

2014-02-10

PEOPLE v. GLENN SALVADOR Y BALVERDE

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Denial cannot prevail against the positive testimony of a prosecution witness. "A defense of denial which is unsupported and unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence becomes negative and self-serving, deserving no weight in law, and cannot be given greater evidentiary value over convincing, straightforward and probable testimony on affirmative matters."[28]

GR No. 200951

2012-09-05

PEOPLE v. JOSE ALMODIEL

CARPIO, J.

The accused argues that SPO4 Arnaldo, SPO3 Alota and PO1 Monton should have testified in court. But in People v. Habana,[55] we held that there is no requirement for the prosecution to present as witness in a drugs case every person who had something to do with the arrest of the accused and the seizure of the prohibited drugs from him. The discretion on which witness to present in every case belongs to the prosecutor.[56] It is even possible to reach a conclusion of guilt on the basis of the testimony of a lone witness.[57] Furthermore, as aptly ruled by the CA, there was no need for other persons in the chain of custody to testify, since their testimonies would only corroborate that of PO2 Virtudazo.

GR No. 194836

2011-06-15

PEOPLE v. ARNOLD CASTRO Y YANGA

VELASCO JR., J.

In the prosecution for the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the following elements must concur: (1) the identities of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof. [67] Significantly, what is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually occurred, coupled with the presentation in court of the substance seized as evidence. [68]

GR No. 194836

2011-06-15

PEOPLE v. ARNOLD CASTRO Y YANGA

VELASCO JR., J.

In the prosecution for the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the following elements must concur: (1) the identities of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof. [67] Significantly, what is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually occurred, coupled with the presentation in court of the substance seized as evidence. [68]

GR No. 191198

2011-01-26

PEOPLE v. NENE QUIAMANLON Y MALOG

VELASCO JR., J.

Significantly, in the prosecution for the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs under Sec. 5, Art. II of RA 9165, the following elements must concur: (1) the identities of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it. It is worth noting that what is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually occurred, coupled with the presentation in court of the substance seized as evidence.[26]

GR No. 185163

2011-01-17

PEOPLE v. CARLO MAGNO AURE Y ARNALDO

VELASCO JR., J.

In the prosecution for the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs under Sec. 5, Art. II of RA 9165, the following elements must concur: (1) the identities of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it.[36] What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually occurred, coupled with the presentation in court of the substance seized as evidence.[37] In the instant case, all these were sufficiently established by the prosecution.

GR No. 191394

2010-10-18

PEOPLE v. MARIA POLITICO Y TICALA

VELASCO JR., J.

In a successful prosecution for offenses involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Sec. 5, Art. II of RA 9165, the following elements must concur: (1) the identities of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it.[12] Such elements are present in this case. What is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited or regulated drug or the corpus delicti as evidence.[13]

GR No. 189278

2010-07-26

PEOPLE v. ELIZABETH MARCELINO Y REYES

VELASCO JR., J.

The prosecution's failure to submit in evidence the required physical inventory and photograph of the evidence confiscated will not result in accused-appellant's acquittal of the crimes charged. Non-compliance with the provisions of RA 9165 on the custody and disposition of dangerous drugs is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution's case. Neither will it render the arrest of an accused illegal nor the items seized from her inadmissible.[18]

	GR No. 189812 2014-09-01	PEOPLE v. REYNALDO BATURI DEL CASTILLO, J.
The Court acknowledges that "[p]rosecutions for illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation."[26] In this case, the credibility of the prosecution witnesses cannot be doubted. Aside from the fact that both lower courts are one in finding that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were direct and definite, the said testimonies are also consistent with each other and with the physical evidence. Besides, "the trial court's determination on the issue of credibility of witnesses and its consequent findings of facts must be given great weight and respect on appeal x x x. This is so because of the judicial experience that trial courts are in a better position to decide the question of credibility, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during trial."[27]
	GR No. 181541 2014-08-18	PEOPLE v. MARISSA MARCELO DEL CASTILLO, J.
Appellant's defenses of denial and frame-up do not deserve credence. Denial cannot prevail over the positive testimony of prosecution witnesses.[24] On the other hand, frame-up is viewed with disfavor since it can easily be fabricated and is a common ploy in prosecution for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Law. For this defense to prosper, it must be proved with clear and convincing evidence. There must also be evidence that the police officers were inspired by improper motive.[25]
	GR No. 190621 2014-02-10	PEOPLE v. GLENN SALVADOR Y BALVERDE DEL CASTILLO, J.
Denial cannot prevail against the positive testimony of a prosecution witness. "A defense of denial which is unsupported and unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence becomes negative and self-serving, deserving no weight in law, and cannot be given greater evidentiary value over convincing, straightforward and probable testimony on affirmative matters."[28]
	GR No. 200951 2012-09-05	PEOPLE v. JOSE ALMODIEL CARPIO, J.
The accused argues that SPO4 Arnaldo, SPO3 Alota and PO1 Monton should have testified in court. But in People v. Habana,[55] we held that there is no requirement for the prosecution to present as witness in a drugs case every person who had something to do with the arrest of the accused and the seizure of the prohibited drugs from him. The discretion on which witness to present in every case belongs to the prosecutor.[56] It is even possible to reach a conclusion of guilt on the basis of the testimony of a lone witness.[57] Furthermore, as aptly ruled by the CA, there was no need for other persons in the chain of custody to testify, since their testimonies would only corroborate that of PO2 Virtudazo.
	GR No. 194836 2011-06-15	PEOPLE v. ARNOLD CASTRO Y YANGA VELASCO JR., J.
In the prosecution for the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the following elements must concur: (1) the identities of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof. [67] Significantly, what is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually occurred, coupled with the presentation in court of the substance seized as evidence. [68]
	GR No. 194836 2011-06-15	PEOPLE v. ARNOLD CASTRO Y YANGA VELASCO JR., J.
In the prosecution for the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the following elements must concur: (1) the identities of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof. [67] Significantly, what is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually occurred, coupled with the presentation in court of the substance seized as evidence. [68]
	GR No. 191198 2011-01-26	PEOPLE v. NENE QUIAMANLON Y MALOG VELASCO JR., J.
Significantly, in the prosecution for the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs under Sec. 5, Art. II of RA 9165, the following elements must concur: (1) the identities of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it. It is worth noting that what is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually occurred, coupled with the presentation in court of the substance seized as evidence.[26]
	GR No. 185163 2011-01-17	PEOPLE v. CARLO MAGNO AURE Y ARNALDO VELASCO JR., J.
In the prosecution for the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs under Sec. 5, Art. II of RA 9165, the following elements must concur: (1) the identities of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it.[36] What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually occurred, coupled with the presentation in court of the substance seized as evidence.[37] In the instant case, all these were sufficiently established by the prosecution.
	GR No. 191394 2010-10-18	PEOPLE v. MARIA POLITICO Y TICALA VELASCO JR., J.
In a successful prosecution for offenses involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Sec. 5, Art. II of RA 9165, the following elements must concur: (1) the identities of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it.[12] Such elements are present in this case. What is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited or regulated drug or the corpus delicti as evidence.[13]
	GR No. 189278 2010-07-26	PEOPLE v. ELIZABETH MARCELINO Y REYES VELASCO JR., J.
The prosecution's failure to submit in evidence the required physical inventory and photograph of the evidence confiscated will not result in accused-appellant's acquittal of the crimes charged. Non-compliance with the provisions of RA 9165 on the custody and disposition of dangerous drugs is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution's case. Neither will it render the arrest of an accused illegal nor the items seized from her inadmissible.[18]

PEOPLE v. NIEVA ALBERTO Y DE NIEVA