Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. VINCENT EVANGELISTA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 200358 2014-04-07	PEOPLE v. GERRY YABLE Y USMAN PEREZ, J.
With caution by the court because it is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove. Like alibi, frame-up as a defense had invariably been viewed with disfavor as it is common and standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.[11]
	GR No. 193185 2011-10-12	PEOPLE v. RICARDO MONDEJAR Y BOCARILI SERENO, J.
It has been held that in a prosecution for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law, a case becomes a contest of credibility of witnesses and their testimonies.[43] Since it was the trial court that had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor and deportment while testifying, the rule is that the trial court's assessment of their credibility is entitled to great respect,[44] and even finality, unless facts of weight and substance bearing on the elements of the crime have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied.[45]
	GR No. 180511 2008-07-28	PEOPLE v. MARILYN NAQUITA Y CIBULO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The issue of whether or not there was indeed a buy-bust operation primarily boils down to one of credibility. In a prosecution for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law, a case becomes a contest of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies.[38] When it comes to credibility, the trial court's assessment deserves great weight, and is even conclusive and binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence. The reason is obvious. Having the full opportunity to observe directly the witnesses' deportment and manner of testifying, the trial court is in a better position than the appellate court to evaluate testimonial evidence properly.[39] The rule finds an even more stringent application where the said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals.[40]
	GR NO. 146848 2006-10-17	GMA NETWORK v. JESUS G. BUSTOS GARCIA, J.
SO ORDERED. Following the denial of their motion for reconsideration,[7] herein respondents went on appeal to the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 52240. As stated at the threshold hereof, the appellate court, in its decision[8] of January 25, 2001, reversed and set aside that of the trial court, to wit: WHEREFORE, the Decision dated October 17, 1995 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and [petitioners] are hereby ordered to pay, in solidum, the following:a) the amount of P100,000.00 for each of the [respondents] as moral damages;