This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-05-05 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| There are, of course, recognized exceptions to this rule. In People v. Leticia Labarias,[120] this court stated that: It is the policy of this Court to sustain the factual findings of the trial court on the reasonable assumption that it is in a better position to assess the evidence before it, particularly the testimonies of the witnesses, who reveal much of themselves by their deportment on the stand. The exception that makes the rule is where such findings are clearly arbitrary or erroneous as when they are tainted with bias or hostility or are so lacking in basis as to suggest that they were reached without the careful study and perceptiveness that should characterize a judicial decision.[121] (Emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2010-05-06 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The jurisprudence on this point cited in accused-appellants' Brief cannot be applied to their case. In People v. Tan,[23] People v. Labarias[24] and People v. Dismuke,[25] the accused had sufficiently proven irregularities in the conduct of the buy-bust operation and/or ill motives on the part of the police officers which rebutted the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duty. In the case at bar, accused-appellants did not prove any irregularity in the procedures undertaken by the police officers nor did they ascribe bad faith or any improper motive to the police officers involved. On the contrary, accused-appellant Joseph Serrano testified on cross-examination that he did not know of any reason for the police to file charges against him.[26] | |||||