This case has been cited 19 times or more.
|
2015-03-11 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| "For illegal possession of regulated or prohibited,drugs, the prosecution mist establish the following elements: (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 possessed the drug."[17] As correctly found by the CA, the prosecution was able to establish through testimonial, documentary and object evidence the aforesaid elements. The circumstances on how petitioner was seen holding and examining a piece of plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance, how the same was confiscated from him by the police officers, and his eventual arrest were aptly narrated by P01 Sta. Maria in a direct and consistent manner. In open court, the same witness positively identified petitioner as the person holding the plastic sachet.[18] He also identified the plastic sachet marked "ATO" as the same item confiscated from petitioner.[19] There is nothing on record to show that petitioner was legally authorized to possess the same. And having been caught in flagrante delicto, there is prima facie evidence that petitioner freely and consciously possessed the drug," which he failed to rebut. Indeed, all the elements of the offense charged are obtaining in this case. | |||||
|
2015-03-11 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| By way of emphasis, in cases involving violations of Dangerous Drugs Act, credence should be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses especially when they are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary.[24] In this regard, the defense failed to show any ill motive or odious intent on the part of the police operatives to impute such a serious crime that would put in jeopardy the life and liberty of an innocent person, such as in the case of accused-appellant. As a matter of fact, aside from accused-appellant's mere denial and alleged extortion against him, no evidence was ever presented to prove the truthfulness of the same. Incidentally, if these were simply trumped-up charges against him, it remains a question why no administrative charges were brought against the police officers. Moreover, in weighing the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses vis-à-vis that of the defense, it is a well-settled rule that in the absence of palpable error or grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge, the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal.[25] | |||||
|
2014-09-10 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In People v. De Guzman,[28] we held that in cases involving violations of the 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 suggesting illmotive on the part of the police officers. In this case, accused-appellant failed to show that the police officers deviated from the regular performance of their duties. His defense of denial is weak and self-serving. Unless corroborated by other evidence, it cannot overcome the presumption that the police officers have performed their duties in a regular and proper manner. The defense simply failed to show any ill motive or odious intent on the part of the police officers to impute such a serious crime that would put in jeopardy the life and liberty of an innocent person, such as in the case of accused-appellant. Additionally, in weighing the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses vis-à-vis that of the defense, it is a well-settled rule that in the absence of palpable error or grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge, the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal.[29] | |||||
|
2014-08-06 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Worthy to note that where the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, and in this case their testimonies as well, the findings of the trial court are not to be disturbed unless the consideration of certain facts of substance and value, which have been plainly overlooked, might affect the result of the case.[21] It cannot be overemphasized that in cases involving violations of Dangerous Drugs Act, credence should be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses especially when they are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary. In this regard, the defense failed to show any ill motive or odious intent on the part of the police officers to impute such a serious crime that would put in jeopardy the life and liberty of an innocent person, such as in the case of accused-appellants. Additionally, in weighing the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses vis-à-vis that of the defense, it is a well-settled rule that in the absence of palpable error or grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge, the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal.[22] | |||||
|
2014-07-18 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| It cannot be overemphasized that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as amended, credence should be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses especially when they are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary. In this regard, the defense failed to show any ill motive or odious intent on the part of the police operatives to impute such a serious crime that would put in jeopardy the life and liberty of an innocent person, such as in the case of accused. Incidentally, if these were simply trumped-up charges against her, there remains a question of why no administrative charges were brought against the police officers. Moreover, in weighing the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses vis-à-vis that of the defense, it is a well-settled rule that in the absence of palpable error or grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge, the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal.[23] | |||||
|
2014-03-12 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| It cannot be overemphasized that in cases involving violations of Dangerous Drugs Act, credence should be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses especially when they are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary. In this regard, the defense failed to show any ill motive or odious intent on the part of the police operatives to impute such a serious crime that would put in jeopardy the life and liberty of an innocent person, such as in the case of accused. Incidentally, if these were simply trumped-up charges against him, it remains a question why no administrative charges were brought against the police operatives. Moreover, in weighing the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses vis-à-vis those of the defense, it is a well-settled rule that in the absence of palpable error or grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge, the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal.[32] | |||||
|
2013-12-11 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| In every prosecution for the illegal sale of shabu, under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the following elements must be proved: "(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. x x x What is material in a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti"[17] or the illicit drug in evidence. On the other hand, in prosecuting a case for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of the same law, the following elements must concur: "(1) the accused is in possession of an item or object, which is identified as a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.[18] | |||||
|
2013-10-16 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In cases involving violations of Dangerous Drugs Act, credence should be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses especially when they are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary.[52] Further, the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, whose conclusion thereon deserves much weight and respect because the judge has the direct opportunity to observe said witnesses on the stand and ascertain if they are telling the truth or not. Applying the foregoing, we affirm the findings of the lower court in the appreciation of facts and credibility of the witnesses.[53] | |||||
|
2013-07-31 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In cases involving violations of Dangerous Drugs Act, credence should be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses especially when they are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary. In this regard, the defense failed to show any ill motive or odious intent on the part of the police operatives to impute such a serious crime that would put in jeopardy the life and liberty of an innocent person, such as in the case of appellant. Incidentally, if these were simply trumped-up charges against him, it remains a question why no administrative charges were brought against the police operatives. Moreover, in weighing the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses vis-à-vis those of the defense, it is a well-settled rule that in the absence of palpable error or grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge, the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal.[34] | |||||
|
2013-06-19 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Lucio's conviction on illegal possession is likewise affirmed. To prosecute Lucio of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, there must be a showing that (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 possessed the drug.[57] | |||||
|
2013-02-06 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| When prosecuting an illegal possession of dangerous drugs case, the following elements must be established: (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 possessed the drug.[33] | |||||
|
2012-11-26 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Finally, the Court is convinced of appellant's commission of the crime charged. In People v. Sembrano,[17] we ruled that "[f]or illegal possession of regulated or prohibited drugs, 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 drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and, (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug." All the foregoing elements were duly established by the prosecution in this case. Appellant was caught in possession of shabu, a dangerous drug. He failed to show that he was authorized to possess the same. Lastly, by his mere possession of the drug, there is already a prima facie evidence of knowledge, which he failed to rebut. All told, we sustain the conviction of appellant. | |||||
|
2012-09-05 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| "Conviction is proper in prosecutions involving illegal sale of [dangerous] drugs if the following elements are present: (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 thereto."[28] | |||||
|
2012-04-18 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| This appeal involves two distinct drug-related offenses, namely: illegal sale of dangerous drugs, and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The successful prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs requires: (a) proof that the transaction or sale took place, and (b) the presentation in court as evidence of the corpus delicti, or the dangerous drugs themselves. On the other hand, the prosecution of illegal possession of dangerous drugs necessitates the following facts to be proved, namely: (a) the accused was in possession of dangerous drugs, (b) such possession was not authorized by law, and (c) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of dangerous drugs.[36] For both offenses, it is crucial that the Prosecution establishes the identity of the seized dangerous drugs in a way that the integrity thereof has been well preserved from the time of seizure or confiscation from the accused until the time of presentation as evidence in court. Nothing less than a faithful compliance with this duty is demanded of all law enforcers arresting drug pushers and drug possessors and confiscating and seizing the dangerous drugs and substances from them. | |||||
|
2011-08-31 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| For conviction of illegal possession of a prohibited drug to lie, the following elements must be established: (1) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug.[26] Based on the evidence submitted by the prosecution, the above elements were duly established in the present case. Mere possession of a regulated drug per se constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused absent a satisfactory explanation of such possession - the onus probandi is shifted to the accused, to explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi.[27] | |||||
|
2011-08-15 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| For conviction of illegal possession of a prohibited drug to lie, the following elements must be established: (1) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug.[19] Based on the evidence submitted by the prosecution, the above elements were duly established in the present case. Mere possession of a regulated drug per se constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused absent a satisfactory explanation of such possession - the onus probandi is shifted to the accused, to explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi.[20] | |||||
|
2011-06-15 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In People v. Sembrano [34] citing People v. Agulay, [35] this Court held that a buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment which in recent years has been accepted as a valid and effective mode of apprehending drug pushers. If carried out with due regard for constitutional and legal safeguards, a buy-bust operation, as in this case, deserves judicial sanction. [36] Moreover, in a buy-bust operation, the violator is caught in flagrante delicto and the police officers conducting the same are not only authorized but also duty-bound to apprehend the violator and consequently search him for anything that may have been part of or used in the commission of the crime. [37] | |||||
|
2011-06-01 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| It is clear from the afore-quoted provision of law that the sale of any dangerous drug, like shabu, notwithstanding its quantity and purity, carries with it the penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00.[61] In light, however, of the effectivity of Republic Act No. 9346, otherwise known as "An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines," the imposition of the supreme penalty of death has been proscribed.[62] Ergo, the penalty applicable to appellant shall only be life imprisonment and fine without eligibility for parole. This Court, thus, sustains the penalty of imprisonment and fine imposed upon appellant by the trial court, which later on affirmed by the Court of Appeals, in Criminal Case No. 02-3170 for illegal sale of shabu in violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. | |||||
|
2011-01-26 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In every prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like marijuana, the following elements must be sufficiently proved to sustain a conviction therefor: (1) the identity of the buyer, as well as the seller, the object and consideration of the sale; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[35] What is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the dangerous drugs seized as evidence. We reiterate the meaning of the term corpus delicti which is the actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged.[36] The commission of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like marijuana, requires merely the consummation of the selling transaction, which happens the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller. Settled is the rule that as long as the police officer went through the operation as a buyer and his offer was accepted by appellant and the dangerous drugs delivered to the former; the crime is considered consummated by the delivery of the goods.[37] | |||||