This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-10-02 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We have consistently held, on the issue of credibility, that we give the highest respect to the trial court's evaluation of the testimonies of witnesses; the trial court is in a better position than this Court to assess the credibility of witnesses since it has direct access to and observes the demeanor of these witnesses and their manner of testifying.[46] Thus, the appellate courts will generally not disturb the findings of the trial court unless the latter has plainly overlooked facts of substance and value that, if considered, would affect the results of the case.[47] We find no compelling reason to deviate from this general rule in passing upon the prosecution's version of events. In fact, and as we indicated above, our own reading of the evidence on record shows that it amply supports the RTC and CA factual findings. | |||||
|
2008-11-14 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Third, Section 12 of Rule 126 expressly provides that "[a] person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense, without a search warrant." In this case, the arresting officers were justified in arresting appellant as he had just committed a crime when he sold shabu to the confidential agent. A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment which has repeatedly been accepted to be a valid means of arresting drug offenders.[14] Considering the legality of appellant's warrantless arrest, the subsequent warrantless search resulting in the recovery of marijuana found in appellant's body is also valid.[15] | |||||