Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. RADZMA AHMAD Y ABDULLAH

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 193664 2011-03-23	PEOPLE v. DOMINGO BANAN Y LUMIDO VELASCO JR., J.
It is a time-honored doctrine that the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses is "entitled to great weight and is even conclusive and binding, if it is not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence,"[31] the reason being the trial judge enjoys the peculiar advantage of observing firsthand the deportment of the witnesses while testifying, and is, therefore, in a better position to form accurate impressions and conclusions.[32]
	GR No. 172092 2009-12-16	PEOPLE v. VS.JOEY TION Y CABADDU VELASCO JR., J.
A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment legally employed by peace officers as an effective way of apprehending drug dealers in the act of committing an offense. Such police operation has judicial sanction as long as it is carried out with due respect to constitutional and legal safeguards.[11] There is no rigid or textbook method in conducting buy-bust operations.[12]
	GR No. 184957 2009-10-27	PEOPLE v. GRACE VENTURA Y NATIVIDAD CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Accused-appellant failed to adduce evidence to substantiate her claim of irregularity in the performance of duty on the part of the police officers. This bare allegation of irregularity in the performance of duty remained self-serving and bereft of any supporting evidence.[33] Neither was any ill motive imputed on the part of the police officers, thus failing to buttress the defense's claim of frame-up. Against the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, accused-appellant's plain denial of the offenses charged, unsubstantiated by any credible and convincing evidence, must simply fail.[34] This Court realizes the disastrous consequences on the enforcement of law and order, not to mention the well being of society, if the courts accept in every instance this form of defense, which can be so easily fabricated. It is precisely for this reason that the legal presumption that official duty has been regularly performed exists. If she were truly aggrieved, it is quite surprising why accused-appellant did not even attempt to file a criminal or an administrative complaint, e.g., for planting drugs, against the arresting officers. Such inaction runs counter to the normal human conduct and behavior of one who feels truly aggrieved by the act complained of.[35] The totality of the evidence points to the fact of the sale of the prohibited drug, with the prosecution witnesses clearly identifying accused-appellant as the offender.
	GR No. 182419 2009-02-10	PEOPLE v. WILFREDO ENCILA Y SUNGA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Prosecutions involving illegal drugs largely depend on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation.[29] In the process of converting into written form the statements of living human beings, not only fine nuances but a world of meaning apparent to the judge present, watching and listening, may escape the reader of the translated words. Considering that this Court has access only to the cold and impersonal records of the proceedings, it generally relies upon the assessment of the trial court, which had the distinct advantage of observing the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses during trial.[30] Hence, factual findings of the trial courts are accorded respect, absent any showing that certain facts of weight and substance bearing on the elements of the crime have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied. We have no reason to deviate from this rule.
	GR NO. 177569 2007-11-28	PEOPLE v. RENATO DE GUZMAN Y MIRANDA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Moreover, appellant's defense of denial is nothing new. The defense of denial or frame-up, like alibi, has been viewed with disfavor for it can easily be concocted and is a common defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. [28] 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.[29] This, appellant failed to do. Appellant could have strengthened his case by presenting as witnesses his supposed two playmates in the card game, but he did not. Instead, he relied solely on his bare allegations unsubstantiated by competent and credible evidence.
	GR No. 175281 2007-09-27	PEOPLE v. VINCENT EVANGELISTA TINGA, J.
At the outset, it should be pointed out that in a prosecution for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law, a case becomes a contest of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies.[24] Considering that this Court has access only to the cold and impersonal records of the proceedings,[25] it generally relies upon the assessment of the trial court, which had the distinct advantage of observing the conduct or demeanor of the witnesses during trial. Hence, factual findings of the trial court are accorded respect absent any showing that certain facts of weight and substance bearing on the elements of the crime have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied.[26]
	GR NO. 170234 2007-02-08	PEOPLE v. BERNARDO F. NICOLAS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Prosecutions involving illegal drugs largely depend on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation. Considering that this Court has access only to the cold and impersonal records of the proceedings, it generally relies upon the assessment of the trial court, which had the distinct advantage of observing the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses during trial. Hence, factual findings of the trial courts are accorded respect absent any showing that certain facts of weights and substance bearing on the elements of the crime have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied.[41] We have no reason to deviate from this rule. We affirm the factual findings of the trial court as affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The evidence presented by the prosecution proves to a moral certainty petitioner's guilt of the crime of selling dangerous drugs.
	GR NO. 152848 2006-07-12	TERESITA SUSON Y BANZON v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We are not convinced. The defense of denial or frame-up, like alibi, has been viewed with disfavor for it can easily be concocted and is a common defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. [26] Denial is a weak form of defense, particularly when it is not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence just like in the case before us.
	GR No. 156890 2004-07-13	PEOPLE v. LOLITA CASOLOCAN Y MANAYAGA CARPIO MORALES, J.
At the outset, it bears pointing out that prosecutions of cases for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act arising from buy-bust operations largely depend on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the same.[33] Unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or were not properly performing their duty, their testimonies on the operation deserve full faith and credit.[34] And so must the prosecution witnesses-members of the buy-bust team in the case at bar be accorded full credence in the absence of any improper motive to implicate appellant.