Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. VICENTE SY Y MADLANGBAYAN

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 187737 2010-07-05	PEOPLE v. ALIODING SULTAN VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Having been caught inflagrante delicto, the appellant's identity as seller of theshabucan no longer be doubted.Against the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, appellant's plain denial of the offenses charged, unsubstantiated by any credible and convincing evidence, must simply fail.[38]Moreover, there is no showing that the prosecution witnesses were impelled by ill motives to testify falsely against the appellant. As appellant himself has testified, he has never met the police officers prior to the arrest.[39]
	GR No. 177768 2009-07-27	PEOPLE v. CHARMEN OLIVO Y ALONG QUISUMBING, J.
Factual findings of trial courts, when substantiated by the evidence on record, command great weight and respect on appeal, save only when certain material facts and circumstances were overlooked and which, if duly considered, may vary the outcome of the case.[18]
	GR No. 179700 2009-06-22	GWYN QUINICOT Y CURATIVO v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Petitioner's allegations of frame-up and extortion fall under the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Having been caught in flagrante delicto, his identity as seller and possessor of the shabu can no longer be disputed. Against the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, petitioner's plain denial of the offenses charged, unsubstantiated by any credible and convincing evidence, must simply fail.[42] Allegations of frame-up and extortion by the police officers are common and standard defenses in most dangerous drugs cases. They are, however, viewed by this Court with disfavor, for such defenses can be easily concocted and fabricated. To prove such defenses, the evidence must be clear and convincing.[43]
	GR No. 180511 2008-07-28	PEOPLE v. MARILYN NAQUITA Y CIBULO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Having been caught in flagrante, appellant's identity as seller and possessor of the shabu can no longer be disputed. Against the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, appellant's plain denial of the offenses charged, unsubstantiated by any credible and convincing evidence, must simply fail.[62] Frame-up, like alibi, is generally viewed with caution by this Court, because it is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove. Moreover, it is a common and standard line of defense in prosecutions of violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act.[63] For this claim to prosper, the defense must adduce clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that government officials have performed their duties in a regular and proper manner.[64]
	GR No. 178876 2008-06-27	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO CONCEPCION Y CLEMENTE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We are not swayed. In the case at bar, the evidence clearly shows that appellants were involved in the buy-bust operation. Having been caught in flagrante delicto, appellants Alfredo and Henry's participation cannot be doubted. Against the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, appellants' plain denial of the offenses charged, unsubstantiated by any credible and convincing evidence, must simply fail.[48] Frame-up, like alibi, is generally viewed with caution by this Court, because it is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove. Moreover, it is a common and standard line of defense in prosecutions of violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act.[49] For this claim to prosper, the defense must adduce clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that government officials have performed their duties in a regular and proper manner. [50]
	GR No. 179940 2008-04-23	PEOPLE v. NORBERTO DEL MONTE Y GAPAY CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In the case at bar, the evidence clearly shows that appellant was the subject of a buy-bust operation. Having been caught in flagrante delicto, his identity as seller of the shabu can no longer be doubted. Against the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, appellant's plain denial of the offenses charged, unsubstantiated by any credible and convincing evidence, must simply fail.[28] Frame-up, like alibi, is generally viewed with caution by this Court, because it is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove. Moreover, it is a common and standard line of defense in prosecutions of violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act.[29] For this claim to prosper, the defense must adduce clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that government officials have performed their duties in a regular and proper manner.[30] This, appellant failed to do. The presumption remained unrebutted because the defense failed to present clear and convincing evidence that the police officers did not properly perform their duty or that they were inspired by an improper motive.
	GR No. 147065 2008-03-14	JUANITO CHAN y LIM v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE NACHURA, J.
In the case at bench, petitioner is charged with illegal sale of a prohibited drug. A successful prosecution of this offense requires the concurrence of the following elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[31] To our mind, the documentary and object evidence submitted to the State Prosecutor, particularly the Joint Affidavit of Arrest, the 935.80 grams of shabu, and the buy-bust money sufficiently establish the existence of probable cause against petitioner for the crime charged. After all, a finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been committed by the suspect.[32] Unless there is a clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were impelled by any improper motive, or were not properly performing their duties, their testimonies on the operation deserve full faith and credit.[33]
	GR NO. 175928 2007-08-31	PEOPLE v. ALVIN PRINGAS Y PANGANIBAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Appellant's defense that there was no buy-bust operation deserves scant consideration. Having been caught in flagrante delicto, his identity as seller of the shabu can no longer be doubted. Against the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, appellant's plain denial of the offenses charged, unsubstantiated by any credible and convincing evidence, must simply fail.[54] Being his common-law wife, we find Gina Dean not to be a credible witness. Appellant said three of his neighbors witnessed the violent entry made by the policemen in his house, but he failed to present them or any of them to prove his point.