This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-07-14 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| On October 12, 2005, the RTC issued the first assailed Order[10] denying the Motion to Suppress/Exclude Evidence. Observing that the motion was anchored on petitioners' alleged illegal arrest, it cited jurisprudence[11] wherein it was held that any objection to an arrest must be made before an accused enters his plea on arraignment. Having failed to move for the quashal of the information before the arraignment, an accused is estopped from questioning the legality of his arrest. Notwithstanding this reference, the RTC based its denial of the subject motion on its examination of the Joint Affidavit of the arresting officers. According to the said court, since it appears from the said affidavit that the search and seizure was incidental to a valid warrantless arrest of the accused who were caught in flagrante delicto, any evidence obtained during such search and seizure is admissible in evidence. | |||||
|
2007-02-06 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The assessment of the credibility of witness and their testimony is a matter best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand; and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under examination. Its findings on such matters are binding and conclusive on appellate courts unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted.[66] Appellant's defense of alibi and denial cannot stand in the face of the positive identification of the accused. We have unfailingly held that alibi and denial being inherently weak cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime.[67] It is facile to fabricate and difficult to disprove, and is generally rejected.[68] | |||||
|
2006-10-27 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Affidavits/depositions for search warrants must be tested and interpreted by Judges in a common-sense and realistic fashion. They are normally drafted by non-lawyers in the midst and haste of a criminal investigation. Technical requisites of elaborate specificity have no place in this area.[75] The Judge in determining probable cause is to consider the totality of the circumstances made known to him and not by a fixed and rigid formula,[76] and must employ a flexible, totality of the circumstances standard.[77] Probable cause exists if a practical, common-sense evaluation of the facts and circumstances show a fair possibility that dangerous drugs will be found in the asserted location.[78] There must be a factual showing sufficient to comprise probable cause of particular facts and circumstances so as to allow the Judge to make an independent evaluation of the matter. It is sufficient if the information put forth in the affidavit/deposition or testimony of the affiant/deponent are believed or appropriately accepted by the affiant/deponent as true.[79] Sufficient information must be presented to allow a Judge to determine probable cause; his action cannot be a mere ratification of the bare/unsubstantiated contention of others. | |||||