Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. SONNY PADUA Y REYES

This case has been cited 10 times or more.

	GR No. 211465 2014-12-03	PEOPLE v. SHIRLEY A. CASIO LEONEN, J.
With regard to the lack of prior surveillance, prior surveillance is not a condition for an entrapment operation's validity.[86] In People v. Padua[87] this court underscored the value of flexibility in police operations:A prior surveillance is not a prerequisite for the validity of an entrapment or buy-bust operation, the conduct of which has no rigid or textbook method. Flexibility is a trait of good police work. However the police carry out its entrapment operations, for as long as the rights of the accused have not been violated in the process, the courts will not pass on the wisdom thereof. The police officers may decide that time is of the essence and dispense with the need for prior surveillance.[88] (Citations omitted)
	GR No. 205741 2014-07-23	PEOPLE v. REYMAN ENDAYA Y LAIG PEREZ, J.
However, since the imposition of the death penalty has been prohibited by R.A. No. 9346,[59] only the penalties of life imprisonment and fine may be imposed.[60] The RTC and the CA, therefore, correctly imposed the penalties of life imprisonment and a fine in the amount of P500,000.00 on appellant in Criminal Case No. 0099-2003.
	GR No. 198108 2013-12-11	PEOPLE v. ROSELITO TACULOD Y ELLE LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In People v. Padua,[29] we held that:What determines if there was, indeed, a sale of dangerous drugs in a buy-bust operation is proof of the concurrence of all the elements of the offense, to wit: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor, which the prosecution has satisfactorily established. The prosecution satisfactorily proved the illegal sale of dangerous drugs and presented in court the evidence of corpus delicti.
	GR No. 185719 2013-06-17	PEOPLE v. MARCELINO COLLADO Y CUNANAN DEL CASTILLO, J.
Moreover, it is of no moment that Forensic Chemist Alejandro De Guzman who conducted the laboratory examination was not presented as a witness. The non-presentation as witnesses of other persons who had custody of the illegal drugs is not a crucial point against the prosecution.[39] 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.[40] To stress, the implementing rules are clear that non-compliance with the requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.[41]
	GR No. 191062 2012-09-19	PEOPLE v. MOHAMAD ANGKOB Y MLANG PEREZ, J.
The fourth link seeks to establish that the specimen submitted for laboratory examination is the one presented in court. Appellant harps on the non-presentation of the forensic chemist which could have established the final link in the chain of custody. The non-presentation as witnesses of other persons such as the investigator and the forensic chemist is not a crucial point against the prosecution. The matter of presentation of witnesses by the prosecution is not for the court to decide. The prosecution has the discretion as to how to present its case and it has the right to choose whom it wishes to present as witnesses.[30] Furthermore, it was already stipulated during the pretrial that the forensic chemist, Abraham Tecson, had examined the illegal drugs taken from the accused.
	GR No. 184606 2012-09-05	PEOPLE OF TILE PHILIPPINES v. CALEXTO DUQUE FUN DALES DEL CASTILLO, J.
Thus, it is of no moment that Forensic Chemical Officer Mangalip was not presented as witness. The non-presentation as witnesses of other persons who had custody of the illegal drugs is not a crucial point against the prosecution.[32] "It is the prosecution which has the discretion as to how to present its case and it has the right to choose whom it wishes to present as witnesses."[33] What is important is that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs are properly preserved as it had been so in this case.
	GR No. 188132 2012-02-29	PEOPLE v. ROSEMARIE MAGUNDAYAO Y ALEJANDRO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In People v. Padua,[60] the Court stated that "[c]learly, the purpose of the procedure outlined in the implementing rules is centered on the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items." Furthermore, we reiterated in People v. Naquita[61] that "[n]either would non-compliance with Section 21 render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance 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."
	GR No. 186392 2012-01-18	PEOPLE v. MARCOS SABADLAB Y NARCISO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Neither is prior surveillance a necessity for the validity of the buy-bust operation. Thus, in People v. Padua,[29] this Court held: A prior surveillance is not a prerequisite for the validity of an entrapment or buy-bust operation, the conduct of which has no rigid or textbook method. Flexibility is a trait of good police work. However the police carry out its entrapment operations, for as long as the rights of the accused have not been violated in the process, the courts will not pass on the wisdom thereof. The police officers may decide that time is of the essence and dispense with the need for prior surveillance.[30]
	GR No. 194580 2011-08-31	PEOPLE v. ADRIANO PASCUA Y CONCEPCION VELASCO JR., J.
In People v. Rosialda,[10] We reiterated jurisprudence to the effect that leeway is given to the prosecution as regards compliance with the chain of custody requirement. We have previously underscored that RA 9165's IRR provides that "non-compliance with the stipulated procedure, under justifiable grounds, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items, for as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officers."[11] What is significant in the requirement is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. Indeed, "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."