Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. RAYMOND FABIAN Y NICOLAS

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 181861 2011-10-17	RAUL DAVID v. PEOPLE PERALTA, 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.[22] It must be emphasized that their testimonies in open court are considered in line with the presumption that law enforcement officers have performed their duties in a regular manner.[23] In the absence of proof of motive to impute falsely a crime as serious as violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, as well as the findings of the trial court on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, shall prevail over petitioner's self-serving and uncorroborated denial.[24] Moreover, the factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive and binding on this Court.[25]
	GR No. 171982 2010-08-18	DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. TRADERS ROYAL BANK and PRIVATIZATION CARPIO, J.
In this case, the Court of Appeals concurred with the factual findings of the trial court. Factual findings of the trial court which are adopted and confirmed by the Court of Appeals are final and conclusive on the Court unless the findings are not supported by the evidence on record.[18] We find no justifiable reason to deviate from the findings and ruling of the Court of Appeals.
	GR No. 189278 2010-07-26	PEOPLE v. ELIZABETH MARCELINO Y REYES VELASCO JR., J.
Also working against Elizabeth's cause is the presumption of regularity accorded those involved in the buy-bust operation. 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.[20] Accused-appellant failed to overcome this presumption by showing clear and convincing evidence that the police officers did not properly perform their duty or that they were inspired by an improper motive.[21]