Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

YOLLY TEODOSIO Y BLANCAFLOR v. CA

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 187047 2011-06-15	PEOPLE v. MANUEL CRUZ Y CRUZ PEREZ, J.
On the legality of appellant's warrantless arrest, it bears stressing that he was arrested in an entrapment operation where he was caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu. An arrest made after an entrapment operation does not require a warrant inasmuch as it is considered a valid warrantless arrest pursuant to Rule 113, Section 5(a) of the Rules of Court, [33] which specifically provides that: SEC. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. - A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
	GR No. 172605 2010-11-22	PEOPLE v. EVANGELINE LASCANO Y VELARDE PERALTA, J.
Well settled is the rule that findings of trial courts, which are factual in nature and which involve the credibility of witnesses, are to be respected when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts and speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gleaned from such findings.[14] Such findings carry even more weight if they are affirmed by the Court of Appeals,[15] as in the instant case.
	GR No. 170137 2009-08-27	PEOPLE v. RANDY MAGBANUA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In the case of Yolly Teodosio y Blancaflor v. Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines,[17] the Court belittled the argument that the prosecution's case was weakened by the fact that the police officers did not issue a receipt for the confiscated drugs and declared that issuing such a receipt is not essential to establishing a criminal case for selling drugs as it is not an element of the crime. Neither is it an element of illegal possession of prohibited drug.
	GR No. 182419 2009-02-10	PEOPLE v. WILFREDO ENCILA Y SUNGA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
First of all, we reiterate the fundamental rule that findings of the trial courts, which are factual in nature and which involve the credibility of witnesses, are accorded respect when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts or speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings.[27] This rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals as in the case at bar.[28]
	GR No. 181546 2008-09-03	PEOPLE v. RICARDO ALUNDAY CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It must be recalled that the Intelligence Section of the Provincial Office of the Mountain Province received the information sometime in May 2000, and accused-appellant was arrested by SPO1 Saipen during the police raid at the plantation at Mount Churyon, Sadanga, only on 3 August 2000. This is so because the arrest was effected only after a series of validations[31] conducted by the team to verify or confirm the report that indeed a marijuana plantation existed at the area and after an operation plan was formed. As admitted by the accused in his supplemental brief, the information about the existing marijuana plantation was finally confirmed only on 2 August 2000.[32] On 3 August 2000, the arresting team of SPO1 Saipen proceeded to the marijuana plantation. SPO1 Saipen saw accused-appellant personally cutting and gathering marijuana plants. Thus, accused-appellant's arrest on 3 August 2000 was legal, because he was caught in flagrante delicto; that is, the persons arrested were committing a crime in the presence of the arresting officers.[33]
	GR No. 171310 2008-07-09	PEOPLE v. SANNY CABACABA Y GAYOSO QUISUMBING, J.
We agree with the appellee. This Court has already ruled repeatedly that a buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment which has repeatedly been accepted to be a valid means of arresting violators of the Dangerous Drugs Law.[19] An arrest made after entrapment does not require a warrant inasmuch as it is considered a valid warrantless arrest pursuant to Rule 113, Section 5(a), of the Rules of Court.[20]
	GR No. 171487 2008-03-14	ERMIN DACLES Y OLEDO v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The Court of Appeals imposed on petitioner the indeterminate penalty of 6 months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional as maximum. In Teodosio v. Court of Appeals,[37] which cited
	GR NO. 172019 2007-02-12	PEOPLE v. BOISAN CABUGATAN Y MACARAMBON CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is a fundamental rule that findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve the credibility of witnesses are accorded respect when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts and speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. The reason for this, being, that the trial court is in a better position to decide the credibility of witnesses having heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[37] The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals as in this case.[38]