Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. FLORENTINO DEL MUNDO

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 179941 2009-08-24	PEOPLE v. LITO MACABARE Y LOPEZ VELASCO JR., J.
In Macabare's case, the defense was not able to present evidence refuting the showing of animus possidendi over the shabu found in his kubol. Macabare's insistence that someone else owned the shabu is unpersuasive and uncorroborated. It is a mere denial which by itself is insufficient to overcome this presumption.[12] The presumption of ownership, thus, lies against Macabare. Moreover, it is well-established that the defense of alibi or denial, in the absence of convincing evidence, is invariably viewed with disfavor by the courts for it can be easily concocted, especially in cases involving the Dangerous Drugs Act.[13]
	GR No. 120670 2003-10-23	PEOPLE v. HEDISHI SUZUKI SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
It is axiomatic that a reasonable search is not to be determined by any fixed formula but is to be resolved according to the facts of each case.[12] Given the circumstances obtaining here, we find the search conducted by the airport authorities reasonable and, therefore, not violative of his constitutional rights. Hence, when the search of the box of piaya revealed several marijuana fruiting tops, appellant is deemed to have been caught in flagrante delicto, justifying his arrest even without a warrant under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.[13] The packs of marijuana obtained in the course of such valid search are thus admissible as evidence against appellant.[14]
	GR No. 148725 2003-07-31	PEOPLE v. LUIS TAMPIS YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
More importantly, a warrantless arrest is not a jurisdictional defect.[26] Any objection, defect or irregularity attending an arrest must be made before the accused enters his plea on arraignment. Having failed to move for the quashing of the information against them before their arraignment, appellants are now estopped from questioning the legality of their arrest.[27] Any irregularity was cured upon their voluntary submission to the trial court's jurisdiction.[28]
	GR No. 149492 2003-01-20	JOEL LUCES v. PEOPLE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Furthermore, we sustain the conclusion of the trial court that petitioner's act of hiding from the authorities when he learned that he was a suspect in the killing of the victim is inconsistent with his plea of innocence. Jurisprudence has held that the flight of an accused, in the absence of a credible explanation, would be a circumstance from which an inference of guilt may be established "for a truly innocent person would normally grasp the first available opportunity to defend himself and to assert his innocence."[25]
	GR No. 146805 2003-01-16	PEOPLE v. RUEL EUGENIO Y ANGELES PANGANIBAN, J.
In the face of the policemen's positive testimony, appellants' denial is self-serving and has little weight in law.[25] We have held that "denials unsubstantiated by convincing evidence are not enough to engender reasonable doubt particularly where the prosecution presents sufficiently telling proof of guilt."[26]
	GR No. 133737 2003-01-13	PEOPLE v. JONATHAN DIAZ AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
"Jurisprudence has repeatedly declared that flight is an indication of guilt. The flight of an accused, in the absence of a credible explanation, would be a circumstance from which an inference of guilt may be established 'for a truly innocent person would normally grasp the first available opportunity to defend himself and to assert his innocence.'"[57]