Lawyerly

GR No. 193855

2015-02-18

DEL CASTILLO, J.

R.A. 9165 imposes the penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10 million for the unauthorized sale of shabu, regardless of its quantity and purity. However, with the enactment of R.A. 9346,[28] appellant shall only be penalized with life imprisonment and fine,[29] as correctly imposed by the RTC and affirmed by the CA. It must be added, however, that appellant shall not be eligible for parole pursuant to Section 2 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

GR No. 207635

2015-02-18

PEOPLE v. DANTE DELA PEÑA

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

In any event, we emphasized in People v. Abedin[61] that what is of utmost importance is to preserve 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. The failure of the law enforcers to comply strictly with Section 21 of R.A. 9165 is not fatal, and its non-compliance will not render the arrest of an accused illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible.

GR No. 189812

2014-09-01

PEOPLE v. REYNALDO BATURI

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Besides, the failure of the police officers to comply strictly with the chain of custody rule is not fatal. It will not render the arrest of appellant illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible.[39] "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."[40]

GR No. 181541

2014-08-18

PEOPLE v. MARISSA MARCELO

DEL CASTILLO, J.

All told, we find no reason to disturb the findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, that appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of shabu, as defined and penalized under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. Under this law, the penalty for the unauthorized sale of shabu, regardless of its quantity and purity, is life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00. However, with the enactment of RA 9346,[28] only life imprisonment and fine shall be imposed.[29] Moreover, appellant is not eligible for parole pursuant to Section 2 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

GR No. 205610

2014-07-30

PEOPLE v. RAMONITO VILLARTA Y RIVERA

PEREZ, J.

With respect to the prosecution of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following facts must be proved: (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.[32]

GR No. 190621

2014-02-10

PEOPLE v. GLENN SALVADOR Y BALVERDE

DEL CASTILLO, J.

All told, there is no reason to disturb the finding of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, that appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of shabu, as defined and penalized under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. Under this law, the penalty for the unauthorized sale of shabu, regardless of its quantity and purity, is life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10 million. However, with the enactment of RA 9346,[44] only life imprisonment and fine shall be imposed.[45] Thus, the penalty imposed by the RTC and affirmed by the CA is proper.

GR No. 176269

2013-11-13

PEOPLE v. KENNETH MONCEDA Y SY

BRION, J.

We have held that prior surveillance is not necessary to render a buy-bust operation legitimate, especially when the buy-bust team is accompanied at the target area by the informant.[34] Similarly, the presentation of an informant as a witness is not regarded as indispensable to the success in prosecuting drug-related cases.[35] It is only when the testimony of the informant is considered absolutely essential in obtaining the conviction of the culprit should the need to protect his identity be disregarded.[36] In this case, the informant had actively participated in the buy-bust operation and her testimony, if presented, would merely corroborate the testimonies of the members of the buy-bust team.

GR No. 191391

2013-06-19

PEOPLE v. BENEDICT HOMAKY LUCIO

PEREZ, J.

It must be stressed that prior surveillance is not a prerequisite for the validity of an entrapment operation. This issue in the prosecution of illegal drugs cases, again, has long been settled by this Court. We have been consistent in our ruling that prior surveillance is not required for a valid buy-bust operation, especially if the buy-bust team is accompanied to the target area by their informant.[63]

GR No. 194384

2013-06-13

JOSELITO RAMOS v. PEOPLE

SERENO, C.J.

Findings of fact of the RTC, particularly when affirmed by the CA, are accorded great weight and respect.[28] Thus, these findings are not to be disturbed in the absence of clear proof that the trial and the appellate courts overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance.[29] In this case, petitioner failed to adduce sufficient proof that the trial and the appellate courts so erred.

GR No. 194253

2013-02-27

PEOPLE v. MAGSALIN DIWA Y GUTIERREZ

PEREZ, J.

On more than one occasion, we have ruled that findings of fact of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are accorded great weight.[10] This is because the trial judge has the distinct advantage of closely observing the demeanor of the witnesses, as well as the manner in which they testify, and is in a better position to determine whether or not they are telling the truth.[11] On that score alone, Diwa's appeal ought to have been dismissed outright.

GR No. 192231

2013-02-13

PEOPLE v. JAMES GALIDO Y NOBLE

PEREZ, J.

On the other hand, to prosecute 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 said drug.[14]

GR No 191726

2013-02-06

PEOPLE v. NOEL BARTOLOME Y BAJO

BERSAMIN, J.

Moreover, we find no glaring errors or misapprehension of facts committed by the RTC in not according credence to the version of the accused and his brother. In this regard, it is significant that the accused did not ascribe any ill motive to Paras that could have made the officer testify falsely against him. Considering that the records were patently bereft of any indicium of ill motive or of any distorted sense of duty on the part of the apprehending team, particularly Paras as the poseur buyer, full credence was properly accorded to the Prosecution's evidence incriminating the accused. Without the clear and convincing indication of the lawmen's ill motive and irregular performance of duty, it is always good law to presume them to have performed their official duties in a regular manner.[19] That presumption became conclusive for lack of contravention.

GR No. 191193

2012-11-14

PEOPLE v. GODOFREDO MARIANO Y FELICIANO

PEREZ, J.

Under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are: (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material to the 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 evidence of corpus delicti.[21]

GR No. 188571

2012-10-10

PEOPLE v. MARICAR BRAINER Y MANGULABNAN

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

This Court has already ruled in several cases that the failure of the arresting officer to comply strictly with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 is not fatal. It will not render the arrest of the accused illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost important 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.[36]

GR No. 182059

2012-07-04

PEOPLE v. CAMILO D. NICART

PEREZ, J.

It is a well-settled rule that prior surveillance is not required, especially when the team is accompanied to the scene by the informant.[35]

	GR No. 193855 2015-02-18	PEOPLE v. VIRGILIO LARGO PERONDO DEL CASTILLO, J.
R.A. 9165 imposes the penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10 million for the unauthorized sale of shabu, regardless of its quantity and purity. However, with the enactment of R.A. 9346,[28] appellant shall only be penalized with life imprisonment and fine,[29] as correctly imposed by the RTC and affirmed by the CA. It must be added, however, that appellant shall not be eligible for parole pursuant to Section 2 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
	GR No. 207635 2015-02-18	PEOPLE v. DANTE DELA PEÑA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In any event, we emphasized in People v. Abedin[61] that what is of utmost importance is to preserve 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. The failure of the law enforcers to comply strictly with Section 21 of R.A. 9165 is not fatal, and its non-compliance will not render the arrest of an accused illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible.
	GR No. 189812 2014-09-01	PEOPLE v. REYNALDO BATURI DEL CASTILLO, J.
Besides, the failure of the police officers to comply strictly with the chain of custody rule is not fatal. It will not render the arrest of appellant illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible.[39] "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."[40]
	GR No. 181541 2014-08-18	PEOPLE v. MARISSA MARCELO DEL CASTILLO, J.
All told, we find no reason to disturb the findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, that appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of shabu, as defined and penalized under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. Under this law, the penalty for the unauthorized sale of shabu, regardless of its quantity and purity, is life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00. However, with the enactment of RA 9346,[28] only life imprisonment and fine shall be imposed.[29] Moreover, appellant is not eligible for parole pursuant to Section 2 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
	GR No. 205610 2014-07-30	PEOPLE v. RAMONITO VILLARTA Y RIVERA PEREZ, J.
With respect to the prosecution of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following facts must be proved: (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.[32]
	GR No. 190621 2014-02-10	PEOPLE v. GLENN SALVADOR Y BALVERDE DEL CASTILLO, J.
All told, there is no reason to disturb the finding of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, that appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of shabu, as defined and penalized under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. Under this law, the penalty for the unauthorized sale of shabu, regardless of its quantity and purity, is life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10 million. However, with the enactment of RA 9346,[44] only life imprisonment and fine shall be imposed.[45] Thus, the penalty imposed by the RTC and affirmed by the CA is proper.
	GR No. 176269 2013-11-13	PEOPLE v. KENNETH MONCEDA Y SY BRION, J.
We have held that prior surveillance is not necessary to render a buy-bust operation legitimate, especially when the buy-bust team is accompanied at the target area by the informant.[34] Similarly, the presentation of an informant as a witness is not regarded as indispensable to the success in prosecuting drug-related cases.[35] It is only when the testimony of the informant is considered absolutely essential in obtaining the conviction of the culprit should the need to protect his identity be disregarded.[36] In this case, the informant had actively participated in the buy-bust operation and her testimony, if presented, would merely corroborate the testimonies of the members of the buy-bust team.
	GR No. 191391 2013-06-19	PEOPLE v. BENEDICT HOMAKY LUCIO PEREZ, J.
It must be stressed that prior surveillance is not a prerequisite for the validity of an entrapment operation. This issue in the prosecution of illegal drugs cases, again, has long been settled by this Court. We have been consistent in our ruling that prior surveillance is not required for a valid buy-bust operation, especially if the buy-bust team is accompanied to the target area by their informant.[63]
	GR No. 194384 2013-06-13	JOSELITO RAMOS v. PEOPLE SERENO, C.J.
Findings of fact of the RTC, particularly when affirmed by the CA, are accorded great weight and respect.[28] Thus, these findings are not to be disturbed in the absence of clear proof that the trial and the appellate courts overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance.[29] In this case, petitioner failed to adduce sufficient proof that the trial and the appellate courts so erred.
	GR No. 194253 2013-02-27	PEOPLE v. MAGSALIN DIWA Y GUTIERREZ PEREZ, J.
On more than one occasion, we have ruled that findings of fact of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are accorded great weight.[10] This is because the trial judge has the distinct advantage of closely observing the demeanor of the witnesses, as well as the manner in which they testify, and is in a better position to determine whether or not they are telling the truth.[11] On that score alone, Diwa's appeal ought to have been dismissed outright.
	GR No. 192231 2013-02-13	PEOPLE v. JAMES GALIDO Y NOBLE PEREZ, J.
On the other hand, to prosecute 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 said drug.[14]
	GR No 191726 2013-02-06	PEOPLE v. NOEL BARTOLOME Y BAJO BERSAMIN, J.
Moreover, we find no glaring errors or misapprehension of facts committed by the RTC in not according credence to the version of the accused and his brother. In this regard, it is significant that the accused did not ascribe any ill motive to Paras that could have made the officer testify falsely against him. Considering that the records were patently bereft of any indicium of ill motive or of any distorted sense of duty on the part of the apprehending team, particularly Paras as the poseur buyer, full credence was properly accorded to the Prosecution's evidence incriminating the accused. Without the clear and convincing indication of the lawmen's ill motive and irregular performance of duty, it is always good law to presume them to have performed their official duties in a regular manner.[19] That presumption became conclusive for lack of contravention.
	GR No. 191193 2012-11-14	PEOPLE v. GODOFREDO MARIANO Y FELICIANO PEREZ, J.
Under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are: (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material to the 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 evidence of corpus delicti.[21]
	GR No. 188571 2012-10-10	PEOPLE v. MARICAR BRAINER Y MANGULABNAN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
This Court has already ruled in several cases that the failure of the arresting officer to comply strictly with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 is not fatal. It will not render the arrest of the accused illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost important 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.[36]
	GR No. 182059 2012-07-04	PEOPLE v. CAMILO D. NICART PEREZ, J.
It is a well-settled rule that prior surveillance is not required, especially when the team is accompanied to the scene by the informant.[35]

PEOPLE v. JAMAD ABEDIN Y JANDAL