Lawyerly

GR No. 192075

2016-02-10

PEREZ, J.

Further, the Court sees no compelling reason to deviate from the factual findings of the trial court as affirmed by the appellate court. Fundamental is the rule that factual findings of the trial courts involving the credibility of witnesses are accorded great weight and respect when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts or speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings.[26]

GR No. 193855

2015-02-18

PEOPLE v. VIRGILIO LARGO PERONDO

DEL CASTILLO, J.

It is clear from the foregoing that the prosecution was able to establish the elements of illegal sale of shabu. "Prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation."[20] Here, the Court finds no reason to doubt the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and their testimonies. The RTC and the CA are one in finding that their testimonies were direct, definite, consistent with one another in relevant points and also with the physical evidence. It bears to stress that the "findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve credibility are accorded respect when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts, or speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. The reason for this is 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. The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals,"[21] as in this case.

GR No. 181541

2014-08-18

PEOPLE v. MARISSA MARCELO

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Moreover, the "findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve credibility are accorded respect when no glaring errors; gross misapprehension of facts; or speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. The reason for this is 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. The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals".[18]

GR No. 180496

2014-04-02

PEOPLE v. ROY SAN GASPAR

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Joramel and Cherme positively and categorically identified appellant as the one who shot and killed Imelda. Their testimonies corroborated each other on material details. Moreover, there is no showing that Joramel and Cherme were impelled by any ill motive to testify against appellant. It has been held that in the absence of any ill motives on the part of the witnesses, their testimonies are worthy of full faith and credit.[37] On the other hand, appellant only offered his bare denial of the offense. However, "[t]he Court had consistently stressed that denial, like alibi, is a weak defense that becomes even weaker in the face of positive identification of the accused by prosecution witnesses."[38] The Court, therefore, finds no reason to disturb the factual findings of the trial court. "It is a well-settled rule that factual findings of the trial court involving the credibility of witnesses are accorded respect since trial courts have first-hand account on the witnesses' manner of testifying and demeanor during trial. The Court shall not supplant its own interpretation of the testimonies for that of the trial judge since he is in the best position to determine the issue of credibility."[39] Furthermore, "in the absence of misapprehension of facts or grave abuse of discretion on the court a quo, and especially when the findings of the judge have been adopted and affirmed by the CA, the factual findings of the trial court shall not be disturbed."[40]

GR No. 188841

2013-03-06

PEOPLE v. JAIME FERNANDEZ Y HERTEZ

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Like the courts below, this Court finds no circumstance whatsoever that would raise any doubt as to the identity, integrity and evidentiary value of the items subject matter of this case. The chain of custody was clearly not broken. "Besides, the integrity of the evidence is presumed preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will or proof that the evidence has been tampered with"[22] in which the burden of proof falls on the appellant.[23] Appellant failed to discharge this burden.

GR No. 189355

2013-01-23

PEOPLE v. ROLANDO CABUNGAN

DEL CASTILLO, J.

In the light of the positive identification by "AAA" whose narration of the incident was found credible by the RTC and the CA, appellant's proffered defense of denial fails. "Like the defense of alibi, a denial crumbles in the light of positive declarations."[22] Moreover, it is a fundamental rule that findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve credibility are accorded respect when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts or speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered therefrom. "The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the [CA],"[23] as in this case.

GR No. 174980

2011-08-31

RADITO AURELIO Y REYES v. PEOPLE

DEL CASTILLO, J.

In the absence of evidence of any ill-motive on the part of the police officers who apprehended the petitioner, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty prevails.[26] The presumption that official duty has been regularly performed was not overcome since there was no proof showing that SPO2 Bacero and PO1 Jacuba were impelled by improper motive.[27] "There is, therefore, no basis to suspect the veracity of their testimonies."[28]

GR No. 189806

2011-01-12

PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO MANLANGIT Y TRESBALLES

VELASCO JR., J.

People v. Macatingag[11] prescribed the requirements for the successful prosecution of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, as follows.

GR No. 184952

2010-10-11

PEOPLE v. MARIANITO GONZAGA Y JOMAYA

DEL CASTILLO, J.

In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must concur: "(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and, (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti."[14]

GR No. 169195

2010-02-17

FRANCISCO APARIS Y SANTOS v. PEOPLE

PERALTA, J.

As to the question of credibility of the police officers who served as principal witnesses for the prosecution, settled is the rule that prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation.[14] It is a fundamental rule that findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve credibility are accorded respect when no glaring errors; gross misapprehension of facts; or speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings.[15] The reason for this is 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.[16] The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals, as in the present case.[17]

GR No. 175590

2010-02-09

PEOPLE v. FERNANDO VILLAMIN Y SAN JOSE

PERALTA, J.

The elements necessary for the prosecution of the illegal sale of drugs are: (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material to the prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.[26]

GR No. 186471

2010-01-25

PEOPLE v. RODANTE DE LEON Y DELA ROSA

VELASCO JR., J.

It is a fundamental rule that findings of the trial court which are factual in nature and which involve the credibility of witnesses are accorded with respect, when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts, and speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings.[9] The reason for this is 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.[10]

GR No. 186380

2009-10-12

PEOPLE v. MANUEL RESURRECCION

VELASCO JR., J.

What is more, the allegation of material inconsistencies involves a question of fact which generally cannot be raised. We will not disturb the findings of the trial court in assessing the credibility of the witnesses, unless some facts or circumstances of weight and influence have been overlooked or the significance of which has been misinterpreted by the trial court.[16] This is so because of the judicial experience that trial courts have; they are in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. They can, thus, more easily detect whether a witness is telling the truth or not.[17] All the more do we apply this rule when the trial courts' findings are sustained by the appellate court.[18]

GR No. 183088

2009-09-17

PEOPLE v. DONATO CAPCO Y SABADLAB

VELASCO JR., J.

In the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, what is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the traded substance--the object evidence which is the core of the corpus delicti.[16] These requirements have been sufficiently established in the instant case. What is more, the integrity of the evidence is presumed to be preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with. Capco has the burden to show that the evidence was tampered or meddled with to overcome a presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers.[17] Capco failed in this respect.

	GR No. 192075 2016-02-10	ROBERTO PALO Y DE GULA v. PEOPLE PEREZ, J.
Further, the Court sees no compelling reason to deviate from the factual findings of the trial court as affirmed by the appellate court. Fundamental is the rule that factual findings of the trial courts involving the credibility of witnesses are accorded great weight and respect when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts or speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings.[26]
	GR No. 193855 2015-02-18	PEOPLE v. VIRGILIO LARGO PERONDO DEL CASTILLO, J.
It is clear from the foregoing that the prosecution was able to establish the elements of illegal sale of shabu. "Prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation."[20] Here, the Court finds no reason to doubt the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and their testimonies. The RTC and the CA are one in finding that their testimonies were direct, definite, consistent with one another in relevant points and also with the physical evidence. It bears to stress that the "findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve credibility are accorded respect when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts, or speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. The reason for this is 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. The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals,"[21] as in this case.
	GR No. 181541 2014-08-18	PEOPLE v. MARISSA MARCELO DEL CASTILLO, J.
Moreover, the "findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve credibility are accorded respect when no glaring errors; gross misapprehension of facts; or speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. The reason for this is 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. The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals".[18]
	GR No. 180496 2014-04-02	PEOPLE v. ROY SAN GASPAR DEL CASTILLO, J.
Joramel and Cherme positively and categorically identified appellant as the one who shot and killed Imelda. Their testimonies corroborated each other on material details. Moreover, there is no showing that Joramel and Cherme were impelled by any ill motive to testify against appellant. It has been held that in the absence of any ill motives on the part of the witnesses, their testimonies are worthy of full faith and credit.[37] On the other hand, appellant only offered his bare denial of the offense. However, "[t]he Court had consistently stressed that denial, like alibi, is a weak defense that becomes even weaker in the face of positive identification of the accused by prosecution witnesses."[38] The Court, therefore, finds no reason to disturb the factual findings of the trial court. "It is a well-settled rule that factual findings of the trial court involving the credibility of witnesses are accorded respect since trial courts have first-hand account on the witnesses' manner of testifying and demeanor during trial. The Court shall not supplant its own interpretation of the testimonies for that of the trial judge since he is in the best position to determine the issue of credibility."[39] Furthermore, "in the absence of misapprehension of facts or grave abuse of discretion on the court a quo, and especially when the findings of the judge have been adopted and affirmed by the CA, the factual findings of the trial court shall not be disturbed."[40]
	GR No. 188841 2013-03-06	PEOPLE v. JAIME FERNANDEZ Y HERTEZ DEL CASTILLO, J.
Like the courts below, this Court finds no circumstance whatsoever that would raise any doubt as to the identity, integrity and evidentiary value of the items subject matter of this case. The chain of custody was clearly not broken. "Besides, the integrity of the evidence is presumed preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will or proof that the evidence has been tampered with"[22] in which the burden of proof falls on the appellant.[23] Appellant failed to discharge this burden.
	GR No. 189355 2013-01-23	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO CABUNGAN DEL CASTILLO, J.
In the light of the positive identification by "AAA" whose narration of the incident was found credible by the RTC and the CA, appellant's proffered defense of denial fails. "Like the defense of alibi, a denial crumbles in the light of positive declarations."[22] Moreover, it is a fundamental rule that findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve credibility are accorded respect when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts or speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered therefrom. "The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the [CA],"[23] as in this case.
	GR No. 174980 2011-08-31	RADITO AURELIO Y REYES v. PEOPLE DEL CASTILLO, J.
In the absence of evidence of any ill-motive on the part of the police officers who apprehended the petitioner, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty prevails.[26] The presumption that official duty has been regularly performed was not overcome since there was no proof showing that SPO2 Bacero and PO1 Jacuba were impelled by improper motive.[27] "There is, therefore, no basis to suspect the veracity of their testimonies."[28]
	GR No. 189806 2011-01-12	PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO MANLANGIT Y TRESBALLES VELASCO JR., J.
People v. Macatingag[11] prescribed the requirements for the successful prosecution of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, as follows.
	GR No. 184952 2010-10-11	PEOPLE v. MARIANITO GONZAGA Y JOMAYA DEL CASTILLO, J.
In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must concur: "(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and, (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti."[14]
	GR No. 169195 2010-02-17	FRANCISCO APARIS Y SANTOS v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
As to the question of credibility of the police officers who served as principal witnesses for the prosecution, settled is the rule that prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation.[14] It is a fundamental rule that findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve credibility are accorded respect when no glaring errors; gross misapprehension of facts; or speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings.[15] The reason for this is 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.[16] The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals, as in the present case.[17]
	GR No. 175590 2010-02-09	PEOPLE v. FERNANDO VILLAMIN Y SAN JOSE PERALTA, J.
The elements necessary for the prosecution of the illegal sale of drugs are: (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material to the prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.[26]
	GR No. 186471 2010-01-25	PEOPLE v. RODANTE DE LEON Y DELA ROSA VELASCO JR., J.
It is a fundamental rule that findings of the trial court which are factual in nature and which involve the credibility of witnesses are accorded with respect, when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts, and speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings.[9] The reason for this is 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.[10]
	GR No. 186380 2009-10-12	PEOPLE v. MANUEL RESURRECCION VELASCO JR., J.
What is more, the allegation of material inconsistencies involves a question of fact which generally cannot be raised. We will not disturb the findings of the trial court in assessing the credibility of the witnesses, unless some facts or circumstances of weight and influence have been overlooked or the significance of which has been misinterpreted by the trial court.[16] This is so because of the judicial experience that trial courts have; they are in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. They can, thus, more easily detect whether a witness is telling the truth or not.[17] All the more do we apply this rule when the trial courts' findings are sustained by the appellate court.[18]
	GR No. 183088 2009-09-17	PEOPLE v. DONATO CAPCO Y SABADLAB VELASCO JR., J.
In the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, what is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the traded substance--the object evidence which is the core of the corpus delicti.[16] These requirements have been sufficiently established in the instant case. What is more, the integrity of the evidence is presumed to be preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with. Capco has the burden to show that the evidence was tampered or meddled with to overcome a presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers.[17] Capco failed in this respect.

PEOPLE v. SAIDAMEN MACATINGAG Y NAMRI