Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. WILSON D. LIM

This case has been cited 10 times or more.

	GR No. 193854 2012-09-24	PEOPLE v. DINA DULAY Y PASCUAL PERALTA, J.
It must be clear that this Court respects the findings of the trial court that AAA was indeed raped by considering the credibility of the testimony of AAA. The rule is that factual findings of the trial court and its evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to great respect and will not be disturbed on appeal.[18] However, the review of a criminal case opens up the case in its entirety. The totality of the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defense are weighed, thus, avoiding general conclusions based on isolated pieces of evidence.[19] In the case of rape, a review begins with the reality that rape is a very serious accusation that is painful to make; at the same time, it is a charge that is not hard to lay against another by one with malice in her mind. Because of the private nature of the crime that justifies the acceptance of the lone testimony of a credible victim to convict, it is not easy for the accused, although innocent, to disprove his guilt. These realities compel [this Court] to approach with great caution and to scrutinize the statements of a victim on whose sole testimony conviction or acquittal depends.[20]
	GR No. 191198 2011-01-26	PEOPLE v. NENE QUIAMANLON Y MALOG VELASCO JR., J.
Relying on People v. Lim,[33]Quiamanlon insists that "any apprehending team having initial control of said drugs and/or paraphernalia, should immediately after seizure or confiscation, have the same physically inventoried and photographed in the presence of the accused, if there be any, and or his representative, who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof."[34]
	GR No. 184760 2010-04-23	PEOPLE v. PATERNO LORENZO Y CASAS PEREZ, J.
In People v. Lim,[12] this Court held: xxx any apprehending team having initial custody and control of said drugs and/or paraphernalia, should immediately after seizure and confiscation, have the same physically inventoried and photographed in the presence of the accused, if there be any, and or his representative, who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. The failure of the agents to comply with such a requirement raises a doubt whether what was submitted for laboratory examination and presented in court was actually recovered from the appellants. It negates the presumption that official duties have been regularly performed by the PAOC-TF agents.
	GR No. 179939 2008-09-29	PEOPLE v. GERALDINE MAGAT Y PADERON TINGA, J.
Recently, in People v. Santos, Jr.,[33] which involved violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the Court agreed with the Office of the Solicitor General's observation that the identity of the corpus delicti has not been sufficiently established since the confiscated plastic sachets of shabu have been marked/initialed at the scene of the crime, according to proper procedure.Citing People v. Lim,[34] which specified that any apprehending team having initial control of illegal drugs and/or paraphernalia should, immediately after seizure or confiscation, have the same physically inventoried and photographed in the presence of the accused if there be any, and/or his representative, who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. The failure of the agents to comply with such requirement raises doubt whether what was submitted for laboratory examination and presented in court is the same drug and/or paraphernalia as that actually recovered from the accused.
	GR NO. 175593 2007-10-17	PEOPLE v. SALVADOR SANTOS TINGA, J.
PUBLIC PROS. MAJOMOT Q After that, what did you do after you recovered or confiscated these plastic sachets from the accused? A After he was arrested, sir, we brought him to the police station. Q After that, what happened next? A When we reached the police station, sir, he gave his name as Salvador Santos. Q What happened to the plastic sachets? A I wrote my initials on all the plastic sachets or the evidence confiscated from him, sir, and a document was prepared for them to be examined at the PNP Crime Laboratory.[36] The case of People v. Lim[37] specifies that any apprehending team having initial control of illegal drugs and/or paraphernalia should, immediately after seizure or confiscation, have the same physically inventoried and photographed in the presence of the accused if there be any, and/or his representative, who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. The failure of the agents to comply with such a requirement raises doubt whether what was submitted for laboratory examination and presented in court was the same drug and/or paraphernalia as that actually recovered from the accused. It negates the presumption that official duties have been regularly performed by the police officers.
	GR No. 143718 2004-05-19	PEOPLE v. HAIRATUL JUBAIL y KILIH alias “SHAIRA JUBAIL y AHARUL” and RUAINA NURUDDIN y MOHAMMAD alias “RUAI NURUDDIN y HARIN” CARPIO, J.
The rule is that factual findings of the trial court and its evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to great respect and will not be disturbed on appeal.[42] However, this rule does not apply where the trial court has overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied any fact or circumstance of weight and substance.[43]
	GR No. 143718 2004-05-19	PEOPLE v. HAIRATUL JUBAIL y KILIH alias “SHAIRA JUBAIL y AHARUL” and RUAINA NURUDDIN y MOHAMMAD alias “RUAI NURUDDIN y HARIN” CARPIO, J.
The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot by itself overcome the presumption of innocence.[59] An accused in a criminal case is presumed innocent until proven otherwise and the prosecution has the burden of proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.[60] The evidence of the prosecution must stand on its own weight and not rely on the weakness of the defense.[61] In this case, the Court finds that the prosecution has failed to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence and to prove with moral certainty the guilt of Hairatul.
	GR No. 104768 2003-07-21	REPUBLIC v. SANDIGANBAYAN CARPIO, J.
The seizure of these items was therefore void, and unless these items are contraband per se,[53] and they are not, they must be returned to the person from whom the raiding seized them. However, we do not declare that such person is the lawful owner of these items, merely that the search and seizure warrant could not be used as basis to seize and withhold these items from the possessor. We thus hold that these items should be returned immediately to Dimaano.
	GR Nos. 149872-73 2003-03-14	PEOPLE v. ROSDIA HAJILI Y SAKILAN PANGANIBAN, J.
Finally, the reliance of appellants on People v. Lim[27] is misplaced. Contrary to their assertion[28] in their Reply Brief,[29] the facts in that case are hardly similar to those in the instant cases. In the aforementioned case, we found substantial inconsistencies in the testimonies of the police officers who had conducted the buy-bust operation. Significantly, the testimony of the poseur-buyer on the sale of illegal drugs was not credibly corroborated, thus, creating uncertainty on whether the crime had indeed been committed.