This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-01-19 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Well-settled is the rule that the findings of the trial court on the issue of credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to great respect and accorded the highest consideration by the appellate court. Since credibility is a matter that is peculiarly within the province of the trial judge, who had the first hand opportunity to watch and observe the demeanor and behavior of witnesses both for the prosecution and the defense at the time of their testimony,[11] we have no reason to disregard the findings of the lower court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals. | |||||
|
2003-09-26 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Exigent and emergency circumstances.[62] The RTC justified the warrantless search of appellants' belongings under the first exception, as a search incident to a lawful arrest. It cited as authorities this Court's rulings in People v. Claudio,[63] People v. Tangliben,[64] People v. Montilla,[65] and People v. Valdez.[66] The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), in arguing for the affirmance of the appealed decision, invokes the cases of People v. Maspil, Jr.,[67] People v. Malmstedt,[68] and People v. Bagista.[69] | |||||
|
2003-09-26 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| In the following cases, the search was held to be incidental to a lawful arrest because of "suspicious" circumstances: People v. Tangliben[88] (accused was "acting suspiciously"), People v. Malmstedt[89] (a bulge on the accused's waist), and People v. de Guzman[90] (likewise a bulge on the waist of the accused, who was wearing tight-fitting clothes). | |||||