Lawyerly

GR No. 215714

2015-08-12

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

On the other hand, appellant failed to present clear and convincing evidence to overturn the presumption that the apprehending officers regularly performed their duties. Except for his bare allegations of denial and frame-up because he failed to divulge the identities of the persons involved in selling illegal drugs in the area of A. Lopez Street to the said police officers, nothing supports his claim that the latter were impelled by improper motives to testify against him. This Court has invariably viewed with disfavor the defenses of denial and frame-up. Such defenses can easily be fabricated and are common ploy in prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. In order to prosper, such defenses must be proved with strong and convincing evidence.[27]

GR No. 193855

2015-02-18

PEOPLE v. VIRGILIO LARGO PERONDO

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Besides, appellant should have filed the proper charges against the police officers if he was indeed a victim of frame-up. "The fact that no administrative or criminal charges were filed lends cogency to the conclusion that the alleged frame-up was merely concocted as a defense scheme."[23]

GR No. 202837

2015-01-21

PEOPLE v. RAKIM MINANGA Y DUMANSAL

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

This Court has invariably viewed with disfavor the defenses of denial and frame-up. Such defenses can easily be fabricated and are common ploy in prosecutions for the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. In order to prosper, such defenses must be proved with strong and convincing evidence.[29]

GR No. 194499

2015-01-14

MANUEL R. PORTUGUEZ v. PEOPLE

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

Likewise, this Court has invariably viewed with disfavor the defenses of denial and frame-up. Such defenses can easily be fabricated and are common ploy in prosecutions for the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. In order to prosper, such defenses must be proved with strong and convincing evidence.[33]

GR No. 189812

2014-09-01

PEOPLE v. REYNALDO BATURI

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Appellant's defense of frame-up likewise fails. "[F]rame-up is viewed with disfavor since, like alibi, it can easily be concocted and is a common ploy in most prosecutions for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Law."[29] Appellant's claim that he was framed by the police officers for refusing to reveal the whereabouts of a drug pusher by the name of Montilla is not worthy of belief. For the police officers to frame him, they must have known appellant prior to the incident.[30] Here, the police officers do not personally know appellant prior to the incident. In fact, appellant himself testified that when the police operatives approached him, they still asked him if he is Naldong. Neither did the appellant claim that he knows the police officers who apprehended him. Also, if appellant was indeed a victim of frame-up by police officers, he should have filed the proper charges against them. "The fact that no administrative or criminal charges were filed lends cogency to the conclusion that the alleged frame-up was merely concocted as a defense scheme. This inaction clearly betrays appellant's claim of frame-up."[31]

GR No. 181541

2014-08-18

PEOPLE v. MARISSA MARCELO

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Besides, appellant should have filed the proper charges against the police officers if she was indeed the victim of a frame-up. The failure to file administrative or criminal charges against them substantiates the conclusion that the defense of frame-up was a mere concoction.[26]

GR No. 191391

2013-06-19

PEOPLE v. BENEDICT HOMAKY LUCIO

PEREZ, J.

We cannot sustain his argument. In order for a discrepancy or inconsistency between the testimonies of witnesses to serve as basis for acquittal, it must refer to significant facts vital to the guilt or innocence of the accused x x x. An inconsistency which has nothing to do with the elements of the crime cannot be a ground for the acquittal of the accused."[66]

GR No. 192913

2013-06-13

PEOPLE v. JOEL REBOTAZO Y ALEJANDRIA

SERENO, C.J.

The Court has been categorical in declaring that neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any money used in a buy-bust operation.[32] Failure to mark the money or to present it in evidence is not material, since failure to do so will not necessarily disprove the sale.[33] If at all, the marked money merely serves as corroborative evidence in proving appellant's guilt.[34] Stated differently, in prosecuting a case for the sale of dangerous drugs, the failure to present marked money does not create a hiatus in the evidence for the prosecution, as long as the sale of dangerous drugs is adequately proven and the drug subject of the transaction is presented before the court.[35]

GR No. 190343

2013-02-06

PEOPLE v. SAIBEN LANGCUA Y DAIMLA

PEREZ, J.

As held in the case of People v. Gonzaga,[42] minor inconsistencies do not negate or dissolve the eyewitnesses' positive identification of the appellant as the perpetrator of the crime.[43] "[M]inor inconsistencies in the narration of witnesses do not detract from their essential credibility as long as their testimony on the whole is coherent and intrinsically believable. Inaccuracies may in fact suggest that the witnesses are telling the truth and have not been rehearsed. Witnesses are not expected to remember every single detail of an incident with perfect or total recall."[44] "[T]he witnesses' testimonies need only to corroborate one another on material details surrounding the actual commission of the crime."[45]

GR No. 186392

2012-01-18

PEOPLE v. MARCOS SABADLAB Y NARCISO

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Similarly, in another case, "[w]e have invariably viewed with disfavor the defenses of denial and frame-up for such defenses can easily be fabricated and are common ploy in prosecutions for the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. In order to prosper, such defenses must be proved with strong and convincing evidence."[26]

GR No. 181249

2011-03-14

PEOPLE v. BAIDA SALAK Y BANGKULAS

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

In People v. Gonzaga,[46] wherein the very same issue was raised, we explained that: While it appears that the buy-bust team failed to comply strictly with the procedure outlined above, the same does not overturn the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duty. A violation of the regulation is a matter strictly between the Dangerous Drugs Board and the arresting officers and is totally irrelevant to the prosecution of the criminal case since the commission of the crime of illegal sale of a prohibited drug is considered consummated once the sale or transaction is established and the prosecution thereof is not undermined by the arresting officers' inability to conform to the regulations of the Dangerous Drugs Board.

GR No. 193184

2011-02-07

PEOPLE v. MICHAEL ANDRES Y TRINIDAD

MENDOZA, J.

Neither was Andres able to prove that he was a victim of a frame-up. The Court has invariably viewed with disfavor the defenses of denial and frame-up. Such defenses can easily be fabricated and are common ploy in prosecutions for the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. In order to prosper, such defenses must be proved with strong and convincing evidence.[5]

	GR No. 215714 2015-08-12	OF PHILIPPINES v. EFREN BASAL CAYAS VILLARAMA, JR., J.
On the other hand, appellant failed to present clear and convincing evidence to overturn the presumption that the apprehending officers regularly performed their duties. Except for his bare allegations of denial and frame-up because he failed to divulge the identities of the persons involved in selling illegal drugs in the area of A. Lopez Street to the said police officers, nothing supports his claim that the latter were impelled by improper motives to testify against him. This Court has invariably viewed with disfavor the defenses of denial and frame-up. Such defenses can easily be fabricated and are common ploy in prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. In order to prosper, such defenses must be proved with strong and convincing evidence.[27]
	GR No. 193855 2015-02-18	PEOPLE v. VIRGILIO LARGO PERONDO DEL CASTILLO, J.
Besides, appellant should have filed the proper charges against the police officers if he was indeed a victim of frame-up. "The fact that no administrative or criminal charges were filed lends cogency to the conclusion that the alleged frame-up was merely concocted as a defense scheme."[23]
	GR No. 202837 2015-01-21	PEOPLE v. RAKIM MINANGA Y DUMANSAL VILLARAMA, JR., J.
This Court has invariably viewed with disfavor the defenses of denial and frame-up. Such defenses can easily be fabricated and are common ploy in prosecutions for the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. In order to prosper, such defenses must be proved with strong and convincing evidence.[29]
	GR No. 194499 2015-01-14	MANUEL R. PORTUGUEZ v. PEOPLE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Likewise, this Court has invariably viewed with disfavor the defenses of denial and frame-up. Such defenses can easily be fabricated and are common ploy in prosecutions for the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. In order to prosper, such defenses must be proved with strong and convincing evidence.[33]
	GR No. 189812 2014-09-01	PEOPLE v. REYNALDO BATURI DEL CASTILLO, J.
Appellant's defense of frame-up likewise fails. "[F]rame-up is viewed with disfavor since, like alibi, it can easily be concocted and is a common ploy in most prosecutions for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Law."[29] Appellant's claim that he was framed by the police officers for refusing to reveal the whereabouts of a drug pusher by the name of Montilla is not worthy of belief. For the police officers to frame him, they must have known appellant prior to the incident.[30] Here, the police officers do not personally know appellant prior to the incident. In fact, appellant himself testified that when the police operatives approached him, they still asked him if he is Naldong. Neither did the appellant claim that he knows the police officers who apprehended him. Also, if appellant was indeed a victim of frame-up by police officers, he should have filed the proper charges against them. "The fact that no administrative or criminal charges were filed lends cogency to the conclusion that the alleged frame-up was merely concocted as a defense scheme. This inaction clearly betrays appellant's claim of frame-up."[31]
	GR No. 181541 2014-08-18	PEOPLE v. MARISSA MARCELO DEL CASTILLO, J.
Besides, appellant should have filed the proper charges against the police officers if she was indeed the victim of a frame-up. The failure to file administrative or criminal charges against them substantiates the conclusion that the defense of frame-up was a mere concoction.[26]
	GR No. 191391 2013-06-19	PEOPLE v. BENEDICT HOMAKY LUCIO PEREZ, J.
We cannot sustain his argument. In order for a discrepancy or inconsistency between the testimonies of witnesses to serve as basis for acquittal, it must refer to significant facts vital to the guilt or innocence of the accused x x x. An inconsistency which has nothing to do with the elements of the crime cannot be a ground for the acquittal of the accused."[66]
	GR No. 192913 2013-06-13	PEOPLE v. JOEL REBOTAZO Y ALEJANDRIA SERENO, C.J.
The Court has been categorical in declaring that neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any money used in a buy-bust operation.[32] Failure to mark the money or to present it in evidence is not material, since failure to do so will not necessarily disprove the sale.[33] If at all, the marked money merely serves as corroborative evidence in proving appellant's guilt.[34] Stated differently, in prosecuting a case for the sale of dangerous drugs, the failure to present marked money does not create a hiatus in the evidence for the prosecution, as long as the sale of dangerous drugs is adequately proven and the drug subject of the transaction is presented before the court.[35]
	GR No. 190343 2013-02-06	PEOPLE v. SAIBEN LANGCUA Y DAIMLA PEREZ, J.
As held in the case of People v. Gonzaga,[42] minor inconsistencies do not negate or dissolve the eyewitnesses' positive identification of the appellant as the perpetrator of the crime.[43] "[M]inor inconsistencies in the narration of witnesses do not detract from their essential credibility as long as their testimony on the whole is coherent and intrinsically believable. Inaccuracies may in fact suggest that the witnesses are telling the truth and have not been rehearsed. Witnesses are not expected to remember every single detail of an incident with perfect or total recall."[44] "[T]he witnesses' testimonies need only to corroborate one another on material details surrounding the actual commission of the crime."[45]
	GR No. 186392 2012-01-18	PEOPLE v. MARCOS SABADLAB Y NARCISO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Similarly, in another case, "[w]e have invariably viewed with disfavor the defenses of denial and frame-up for such defenses can easily be fabricated and are common ploy in prosecutions for the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. In order to prosper, such defenses must be proved with strong and convincing evidence."[26]
	GR No. 181249 2011-03-14	PEOPLE v. BAIDA SALAK Y BANGKULAS VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In People v. Gonzaga,[46] wherein the very same issue was raised, we explained that: While it appears that the buy-bust team failed to comply strictly with the procedure outlined above, the same does not overturn the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duty. A violation of the regulation is a matter strictly between the Dangerous Drugs Board and the arresting officers and is totally irrelevant to the prosecution of the criminal case since the commission of the crime of illegal sale of a prohibited drug is considered consummated once the sale or transaction is established and the prosecution thereof is not undermined by the arresting officers' inability to conform to the regulations of the Dangerous Drugs Board.
	GR No. 193184 2011-02-07	PEOPLE v. MICHAEL ANDRES Y TRINIDAD MENDOZA, J.
Neither was Andres able to prove that he was a victim of a frame-up. The Court has invariably viewed with disfavor the defenses of denial and frame-up. Such defenses can easily be fabricated and are common ploy in prosecutions for the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. In order to prosper, such defenses must be proved with strong and convincing evidence.[5]

PEOPLE v. MARIANITO GONZAGA Y JOMAYA