Lawyerly

GR No. 207988

2015-03-11

PEREZ, J.

This Court has consistently ruled that for the successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the following elements must be proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[18] In other words, there is a need to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused actually sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another, and that the former indeed knew that what he had sold and delivered to the latter was a prohibited drug.[19] To reiterate, what is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, plus the presentation in court of corpus delicti as evidence.[20] On the other hand, we have adhered to the time-honored principle that for illegal possession of regulated or prohibited drugs under Section 11 of the same law, the prosecution must establish the following elements: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object, which is identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.[21]

GR No. 202687

2015-01-14

PEOPLE v. JERIC PAVIA Y PALIZA

PEREZ, J.

Indeed, the defenses of denial and frame-up have been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor for it can easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in prosecutions for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. In order to prosper, the defenses of denial and frame-up must be proved with strong and convincing evidence. In the case before us, appellants failed to present sufficient evidence in support of their claims. Aside from their self-serving assertions, no plausible proof was presented to bolster their allegations.[20] Consequently, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence that the police officers were inspired by any improper motive, this Court will not appreciate the defense of denial or frame-up and instead apply the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by law enforcement agents.[21]

GR No. 204911

2014-08-06

PEOPLE v. MIKE STEVE Y BASMAN

PEREZ, J.

At the outset, this Court has consistently ruled that for the successful prosecution of offenses involving drug pushing or sale of dangerous or prohibited drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the following elements must be proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, object and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[17] In other words, there is a need to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused actually sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another, and that the former indeed knew that what he had sold and delivered to the latter was a prohibited drug.[18] To reiterate, what is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, plus the presentation in court of corpus delicti as evidence.[19]

GR No. 201725

2014-07-18

PEOPLE v. JOY ALCALA Y NOVILLA

PEREZ, J.

Nonetheless, for academic discussion, it has been consistently ruled that for the successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of drugs under Article II, Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165, the following elements must be proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, object and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[19] In other words, there is a need to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused actually sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another, and that the former indeed knew that what she had sold and delivered to the latter was a prohibited drug.[20] To reiterate, what is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, plus the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence.[21]

GR No. 196146

2014-03-12

PEOPLE v. FREDDIE LADIP Y RUBIO

PEREZ, J.

It has been consistently ruled that for the successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the following elements must be proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, object and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[24] In other words, there is a need to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused actually sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another, and that the former indeed knew that what he had sold and delivered to the latter was a prohibited drug.[25] To reiterate, what is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, plus the presentation in court of corpus delicti as evidence.[26]

GR No. 180919

2013-01-09

PEOPLE v. MELBA L. ESPIRITU

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Moreover, a police officer's act of soliciting drugs from appellant during the buy-bust operation, or what is known as the "decoy solicitation," is not prohibited by law and does not invalidate the buy-bust operation.[48] In People v. Legaspi,[49] this Court pronounced that in a prosecution for sale of illicit drugs, any of the following will not exculpate the accused: "(1) that facilities for the commission of the crime were intentionally placed in his way; or (2) that the criminal act was done at the solicitation of the decoy or poseur-buyer seeking to expose his criminal act; or (3) that the police authorities feigning complicity in the act were present and apparently assisted in its commission."[50] Hence, even assuming that the PAOCTF operatives repeatedly asked her to sell them shabu, appellant's defense of instigation will not prosper. This is "especially true in that class of cases where the offense is the kind that is habitually committed, and the solicitation merely furnished evidence of a course of conduct. Mere deception by the police officer will not shield the perpetrator, if the offense was committed by him free from the influence or instigation of the police officer."[51]

GR No. 176077

2011-08-31

ABRAHAM MICLAT v. PEOPLE

PERALTA, J.

From the foregoing, it is clear that the failure of the law enforcers to comply strictly with the rule is not fatal. It does not render petitioner's arrest illegal nor the evidence adduced against him inadmissible.[22] 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."[23]

GR No. 194580

2011-08-31

PEOPLE v. ADRIANO PASCUA Y CONCEPCION

VELASCO JR., J.

What is more, PO1 Tadeo enjoys the presumption of regularity accorded to those performing their official duties. To overturn the presumption, there must be clear and convincing evidence that the police officer was inspired by an improper motive.[14] No evidence was shown by accused-appellant that PO1 Tadeo had any ill motive to frame him.

GR No. 189325

2011-06-15

PEOPLE v. TEOFILO RAGODON MARCELINO

VELASCO JR., J.

Accused-appellant has made much of what he perceived as inconsistencies in the testimonies of the members of the buy-bust team. It must be pointed out, however, that the alleged discrepancy is to be expected. It is doctrinally settled in a long line of cases that minor discrepancies or inconsistencies do not impair the essential integrity of the prosecution's evidence. [21] To note, the testimony of P/CInsp. Santos was given only on April 28, 2005 or several months after the buy-bust operation was conducted; thus, it is plausible that he could not recall all the members of the September 18, 2004 buy-bust operation. To emphasize, the number of members is not central to the issue of illegal sale of shabu. What is material for the prosecution in illegal sale of drugs is the proof that the transaction actually took place, together with the presentation in court of the evidence of corpus delicti. [22]

GR No. 191754

2011-04-11

PEOPLE v. GREGORIO FELIPE Y CALINGANGAN

PERALTA, J.

As can be gleaned from the language of Section 21 of the Implementing Rules, it is clear that the failure of the law enforcers to comply strictly with it is not fatal. It does not render Felipe's arrest illegal nor the evidence adduced against him inadmissible.[20] 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."[21]

GR No. 182525

2011-03-02

PEOPLE v. BERTHA PRESAS Y TOLENTINO

PEREZ, J.

At the outset, we affirm the findings of the trial court with respect to the credibility of the prosecution witnesses considering that the trial court had the opportunity to observe the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses during the trial. 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.[12]

GR No. 180452

2011-01-10

PEOPLE v. NG YIK BUN

VELASCO JR., J.

Moreover, present in the instant case are all the elements of illegal possession of drugs: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possesses the said drug. [12] Accused-appellants were positively identified in court as the individuals caught loading and possessing illegal drugs. They were found to be in possession of prohibited drugs without proof that they were duly authorized by law to possess them. Having been caught in flagrante delicto, there is, therefore, a prima facie evidence of animus possidendi on the part of accused-appellants. [13] There is, thus, no merit to the argument of the defense that a warrant was needed to arrest accused-appellants.

GR No. 189278

2010-07-26

PEOPLE v. ELIZABETH MARCELINO Y REYES

VELASCO JR., J.

We discussed in People v. Pagkalinawan[19] both what the law provides and the level of compliance it requires: Sec. 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 provides:

	GR No. 207988 2015-03-11	PEOPLE v. BRIAN MERCADO Y SARMIENTO PEREZ, J.
This Court has consistently ruled that for the successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the following elements must be proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[18] In other words, there is a need to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused actually sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another, and that the former indeed knew that what he had sold and delivered to the latter was a prohibited drug.[19] To reiterate, what is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, plus the presentation in court of corpus delicti as evidence.[20] On the other hand, we have adhered to the time-honored principle that for illegal possession of regulated or prohibited drugs under Section 11 of the same law, the prosecution must establish the following elements: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object, which is identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.[21]
	GR No. 202687 2015-01-14	PEOPLE v. JERIC PAVIA Y PALIZA PEREZ, J.
Indeed, the defenses of denial and frame-up have been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor for it can easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in prosecutions for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. In order to prosper, the defenses of denial and frame-up must be proved with strong and convincing evidence. In the case before us, appellants failed to present sufficient evidence in support of their claims. Aside from their self-serving assertions, no plausible proof was presented to bolster their allegations.[20] Consequently, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence that the police officers were inspired by any improper motive, this Court will not appreciate the defense of denial or frame-up and instead apply the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by law enforcement agents.[21]
	GR No. 204911 2014-08-06	PEOPLE v. MIKE STEVE Y BASMAN PEREZ, J.
At the outset, this Court has consistently ruled that for the successful prosecution of offenses involving drug pushing or sale of dangerous or prohibited drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the following elements must be proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, object and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[17] In other words, there is a need to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused actually sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another, and that the former indeed knew that what he had sold and delivered to the latter was a prohibited drug.[18] To reiterate, what is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, plus the presentation in court of corpus delicti as evidence.[19]
	GR No. 201725 2014-07-18	PEOPLE v. JOY ALCALA Y NOVILLA PEREZ, J.
Nonetheless, for academic discussion, it has been consistently ruled that for the successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of drugs under Article II, Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165, the following elements must be proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, object and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[19] In other words, there is a need to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused actually sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another, and that the former indeed knew that what she had sold and delivered to the latter was a prohibited drug.[20] To reiterate, what is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, plus the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence.[21]
	GR No. 196146 2014-03-12	PEOPLE v. FREDDIE LADIP Y RUBIO PEREZ, J.
It has been consistently ruled that for the successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the following elements must be proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, object and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[24] In other words, there is a need to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused actually sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another, and that the former indeed knew that what he had sold and delivered to the latter was a prohibited drug.[25] To reiterate, what is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, plus the presentation in court of corpus delicti as evidence.[26]
	GR No. 180919 2013-01-09	PEOPLE v. MELBA L. ESPIRITU DEL CASTILLO, J.
Moreover, a police officer's act of soliciting drugs from appellant during the buy-bust operation, or what is known as the "decoy solicitation," is not prohibited by law and does not invalidate the buy-bust operation.[48] In People v. Legaspi,[49] this Court pronounced that in a prosecution for sale of illicit drugs, any of the following will not exculpate the accused: "(1) that facilities for the commission of the crime were intentionally placed in his way; or (2) that the criminal act was done at the solicitation of the decoy or poseur-buyer seeking to expose his criminal act; or (3) that the police authorities feigning complicity in the act were present and apparently assisted in its commission."[50] Hence, even assuming that the PAOCTF operatives repeatedly asked her to sell them shabu, appellant's defense of instigation will not prosper. This is "especially true in that class of cases where the offense is the kind that is habitually committed, and the solicitation merely furnished evidence of a course of conduct. Mere deception by the police officer will not shield the perpetrator, if the offense was committed by him free from the influence or instigation of the police officer."[51]
	GR No. 176077 2011-08-31	ABRAHAM MICLAT v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
From the foregoing, it is clear that the failure of the law enforcers to comply strictly with the rule is not fatal. It does not render petitioner's arrest illegal nor the evidence adduced against him inadmissible.[22] 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."[23]
	GR No. 194580 2011-08-31	PEOPLE v. ADRIANO PASCUA Y CONCEPCION VELASCO JR., J.
What is more, PO1 Tadeo enjoys the presumption of regularity accorded to those performing their official duties. To overturn the presumption, there must be clear and convincing evidence that the police officer was inspired by an improper motive.[14] No evidence was shown by accused-appellant that PO1 Tadeo had any ill motive to frame him.
	GR No. 189325 2011-06-15	PEOPLE v. TEOFILO RAGODON MARCELINO VELASCO JR., J.
Accused-appellant has made much of what he perceived as inconsistencies in the testimonies of the members of the buy-bust team. It must be pointed out, however, that the alleged discrepancy is to be expected. It is doctrinally settled in a long line of cases that minor discrepancies or inconsistencies do not impair the essential integrity of the prosecution's evidence. [21] To note, the testimony of P/CInsp. Santos was given only on April 28, 2005 or several months after the buy-bust operation was conducted; thus, it is plausible that he could not recall all the members of the September 18, 2004 buy-bust operation. To emphasize, the number of members is not central to the issue of illegal sale of shabu. What is material for the prosecution in illegal sale of drugs is the proof that the transaction actually took place, together with the presentation in court of the evidence of corpus delicti. [22]
	GR No. 191754 2011-04-11	PEOPLE v. GREGORIO FELIPE Y CALINGANGAN PERALTA, J.
As can be gleaned from the language of Section 21 of the Implementing Rules, it is clear that the failure of the law enforcers to comply strictly with it is not fatal. It does not render Felipe's arrest illegal nor the evidence adduced against him inadmissible.[20] 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."[21]
	GR No. 182525 2011-03-02	PEOPLE v. BERTHA PRESAS Y TOLENTINO PEREZ, J.
At the outset, we affirm the findings of the trial court with respect to the credibility of the prosecution witnesses considering that the trial court had the opportunity to observe the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses during the trial. 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.[12]
	GR No. 180452 2011-01-10	PEOPLE v. NG YIK BUN VELASCO JR., J.
Moreover, present in the instant case are all the elements of illegal possession of drugs: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possesses the said drug. [12] Accused-appellants were positively identified in court as the individuals caught loading and possessing illegal drugs. They were found to be in possession of prohibited drugs without proof that they were duly authorized by law to possess them. Having been caught in flagrante delicto, there is, therefore, a prima facie evidence of animus possidendi on the part of accused-appellants. [13] There is, thus, no merit to the argument of the defense that a warrant was needed to arrest accused-appellants.
	GR No. 189278 2010-07-26	PEOPLE v. ELIZABETH MARCELINO Y REYES VELASCO JR., J.
We discussed in People v. Pagkalinawan[19] both what the law provides and the level of compliance it requires: Sec. 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 provides:

PEOPLE v. VICTORIO PAGKALINAWAN