Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. RUSSEL NAVARRO Y MARMOJADA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 179936 2012-04-11	PEOPLE v. JAMAD ABEDIN Y JANDAL VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In cases involving violations of the Comprehensive 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.[30] In this case, no such evidence was adduced showing any irregularity in any material aspect of the conduct of the buy-bust operation. Abedin failed to present clear and convincing evidence to overturn the presumption that the arresting officers regularly performed their duties. Except for his bare allegations, there is no proof to show that he was framed-up for extortion purposes. Absent any showing that in testifying, the police officers were impelled by any ill feeling or improper motive against him, we find that the RTC and the CA committed no error in giving credence to their account over Abedin's denial.
	GR No. 181040 2010-03-15	PEOPLE v. RAYMOND FABIAN Y NICOLAS VILLARAMA, JR., J.
It is a settled rule 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. [17] Moreover, the factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive and binding on this Court. [18] In the present case, appellants gravely failed to show that the trial court overlooked or misapprehended any fact or circumstance of weight and substance to warrant a deviation from this rule.
	GR No. 187070 2010-02-24	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO TAMAYO Y TENA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
It is a settled rule that in cases involving violations of the Comprehensive 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.[24] In this case, no evidence was adduced showing any irregularity in any material aspect of the conduct of the buy-bust operation. Neither was there any proof that the prosecution witnesses who were members of the buy-bust operation team, particularly those whose testimonies were in question, were impelled by any ill-feeling or improper motive against the appellant which would raise a doubt as to their credibility.
	GR No. 181494 2009-03-17	PEOPLE v. MONALYN CERVANTES Y SOLAR VELASCO JR., J.
To paraphrase an unyielding rule, if the inculpatory testimony is capable of two or more explanations, one consistent with the innocence of the accused persons and the other consistent with their guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction.[16]
	GR No. 176151 2009-01-30	PEOPLE v. LOURDERICO ORTIZ DARISAN CORONA, J.
It is a settled rule that in cases involving violations of the Comprehensive 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.[8] In this case, no evidence was adduced showing any irregularity in any material aspect of the conduct of the buy-bust operation. Neither was there any proof that the prosecution witnesses who were members of the buy-bust operation team, particularly those whose testimonies were in question, were impelled by any ill-feeling or improper motive against appellants which would raise a doubt about their credibility.
	GR No. 172031 2008-07-14	JUANITO TALIDANO v. FALCON MARITIME TINGA, J,
(1) [T]he VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING was signed by one Florida Z. Jose, President of petitioner Falcon Maritime and Allied Services, Inc., without proof that she is the duly authorized representative of petitioner-corporation; (2) [T]here is no affidavit of service of the petition to the National Labor Relations Commission and to the adverse party; (3) [T]here is no explanation to justify service by mail in lieu of the required personal service. (Citations omitted)[20] An entry of judgment was issued by the clerk of court on 23 November 2002 stating that the 29 October 2002 Resolution had already become final and executory.[21] Meanwhile, on 12 November 2002, private respondent filed another petition before the Court of Appeals,[22] docketed as CA G.R. SP No. 73790. This is the subject of the present petition.