Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. VILMA ALMENDRAS Y ZAPATA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 182210 2015-10-05	PAZ T. BERNARDO v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
To be sure, the postponement of the trial of a case to allow the presentation of evidence is a matter that lies with the discretion of the trial court; but it is a discretion that must be exercised wisely, considering the peculiar circumstances of each case and with a view to doing substantial justice.[42] In the present case, the records show that the RTC took all the steps necessary to safeguard Bernardo's rights and to accord her the opportunity to present whatever evidence she had in her defense.
	GR No. 188630 2011-02-23	FILOMENA L. VILLANUEVA v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
The Court also takes note that the petitioner has no participatory negligence. The resulting dismissal by the CA was utterly attributable to the gross negligence of her counsel. For said reason, the Court is not averse to suspending its own rules in the pursuit of justice. "Where reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law, or when its application will result in outright deprivation of the client's liberty or property or where the interests of justice so require, relief is accorded to the client who suffered by reason of the lawyer's gross or palpable mistake or negligence."[27]
	GR No. 188570 2010-07-06	PEOPLE v. CHRISTOPHER DE MESA NACHURA, J.
In cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Law, appellate courts tend to rely heavily on the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses, because the latter had the unique opportunity, denied to the appellate courts, to observe the witnesses and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under direct and cross-examination. Hence, its factual findings are accorded great respect, even finality, absent any showing that certain facts of weight and substance bearing on the elements of the crime have been overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied.[28]
	GR No. 180505 2010-06-29	PEOPLE v. MARIO MIGUEL Y BERNABE PEREZ, J.
It is a well-settled rule that prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation.[12] Hence, the evaluation by the trial court of the credibility of witnesses is entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed on appeal unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case. The reason for this is that the trial court is in a better position to decide thereon, having personally heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. This is explained by the fact that this Court has access only to the cold and impersonal records of the proceedings, thus, it relies heavily on the rule that the weighing of evidence, particularly when there are conflicts in the testimonies of witnesses, is best left to the trial court, which had the unique opportunity to observe their demeanor, conduct and manner while testifying.[13] We find no reason to deviate from this rule in the case before us.
	GR No. 145337 2003-10-02	PEOPLE v. LEE HOI MING YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The basic issue to be resolved hinges on whether there was a legitimate "buy-bust" operation. Stated differently, the issue is whether the prosecution was able to prove the elements of an illegal sale of prohibited or regulated drugs which are: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefore.[4]