This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2008-07-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| At this juncture, it is best to emphasize that prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation;[43] under these circumstances, the Court relies on the rule that the weighing of evidence, particularly conflicts in the testimonies of witnesses, is best left to the discretion of the trial court, which had the best opportunity to observe their demeanor, conduct and manner while testifying.[44] Such an opportunity is denied to the appellate courts.[45] For this reason, the trial court's findings are accorded finality, unless there appears on the record some fact or circumstance of weight which the lower court may have overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would alter the results of the case.[46] 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 not do the same.[47] When the trial court's factual findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally conclusive and binding upon the Court.[48] In the instant case, we find no compelling reason to reverse the findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals. We do so for the following critical points: First, all the necessary elements for the prosecution of the illegal sale of drugs were established. The elements are the following: (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.[49] It is beyond reasonable doubt that the transaction actually took place, as ruled by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court. Prosecution witness PO2 Ortiz narrated that he was introduced by the informant to defendant-appellant as a buyer of shabu. PO2 Ortiz then told defendant-appellant that he was going to buy shabu worth P200.00. PO2 Ortiz was then handed a small plastic sachet containing the prohibited drug. After his receipt of the item, he handed defendant-appellant the money. PO2 Ortiz then gave the pre-arranged signal and introduced himself to defendant-appellant as a police office. Following the pre-arranged signal, the rest of the team rushed to the scene. Thus: | |||||
|
2006-09-27 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Like an alibi, self-defense is inherently weak for it is easy to fabricate.[47] Thus, this Court had consistently ruled that where an accused admits killing the victim but invokes self-defense, it is incumbent upon the accused to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he acted in self-defense.[48] As the burden of evidence is shifted on the accused to prove all the elements of self-defense, he must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution.[49] In the instant case, appellant failed to discharge such burden with clear and convincing evidence. Therefore, his plea of lawful self-defense must fall. | |||||
|
2006-09-12 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In resolving criminal cases where the accused invokes self-defense to escape criminal liability, this Court consistently held that where an accused admits killing the victim but invokes self-defense, it is incumbent upon the accused to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he acted in self-defense.[52] As the burden of evidence is shifted on the accused to prove all the elements of self-defense, he must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution.[53] | |||||