This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2013-04-03 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Finally, we note and agree with the observation of the CA that the issue regarding the break in the chain of custody of evidence was raised belatedly and only for the first time on appeal.[22] In People v. Mateo,[23] this Court brushed aside the accused's belated contention that the illegal drugs confiscated from his person was inadmissible because the arresting officers failed to comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. Whatever justifiable grounds may excuse the police officers from literally complying with Section 21 will remain unknown, because accused did not question during trial the safekeeping of the items seized from him. Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of an objection. Without such objection, he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal. | |||||
|
2011-06-08 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| A buy-bust operation is "a form of entrapment, in which the violator is caught in flagrante delicto and the police officers conducting the operation are not only authorized but duty-bound to apprehend the violator and to search him for anything that may have been part of or used in the commission of the crime."[16] However, where there really was no buy-bust operation conducted, it cannot be denied that the elements for illegal sale of prohibited drugs cannot be duly proved despite the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and the seeming straightforward testimony in court by the arresting police officers. After all, the indictment for illegal sale of prohibited drugs will not have a leg to stand on. | |||||
|
2010-04-14 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| When this Court is asked to go over the evidence presented by the parties and to analyze, assess and weigh the same to ascertain if the trial court, as affirmed by the appellate court, was correct in according superior credit to this or that piece of evidence and, eventually, to the totality of the evidence of one party or the other, the Court will, ordinarily, demur. When the trial court's factual findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally conclusive and binding upon the Court.[9] | |||||
|
2010-03-15 |
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. | |||||
|
2010-02-17 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| As to the question of credibility of the police officers who served as principal witnesses for the prosecution, settled is the rule that prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation.[14] It is a fundamental rule that findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve credibility are accorded respect when no glaring errors; gross misapprehension of facts; or speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings.[15] The reason for this is that the trial court is in a better position to decide the credibility of witnesses, having heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[16] The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals, as in the present case.[17] | |||||
|
2009-10-27 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Mere denial and allegations of frame-up have been invariably viewed by the courts with disfavor, for these defenses are easily concocted.[29] These are common and standard defenses in prosecutions involving violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law. In a long line of cases, we have ruled that the testimonies of police officers involved in a buy-bust operation deserve full faith and credit, given the presumption that they have performed their duties regularly.[30] This presumption can be overturned if clear and convincing evidence is presented to prove either of two things: (1) that they were not properly performing their duty, or (2) that they were inspired by an improper motive.[31] Otherwise, the police officers' testimonies on the operation deserve full faith and credit.[32] | |||||
|
2008-11-14 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Generally, the factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive and binding on this Court.[7] In the present case, appellant 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. | |||||