This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2013-11-27 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The RTC's appreciation of the prosecution witnesses' testimonies vis-à-vis the defense offered by Loks and the other evidence presented during the proceedings before it deserves respect. It is a well-entrenched principle that "[t]he trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is conclusive on this Court as it is the trial court which had the opportunity to closely observe the demeanor of the witnesses."[19] Further, we explained in People v. Naelga[20]: [I]t should be pointed out that 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. This Court will not interfere with the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses except when there appears on record some fact or circumstance of weight and influence which the trial court has overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted. This rule is consistent with the reality that the trial court is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. Thus, factual findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses, and its conclusions anchored on its findings are accorded by the appellate court high respect, if not conclusive effect, more so when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, as in this case.[21] (Citations omitted) | |||||
|
2013-06-13 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Generally, the Court will not disturb the weight and credence accorded by the trial court to witnesses' testimonies, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals. As the Court explained in People v. Naelga[26]:At the outset, it should be pointed out that 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. This Court will not interfere with the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses except when there appears on record some fact or circumstance of weight and influence which the trial court has overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted. This rule is consistent with the reality that the trial court is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. Thus, factual findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses, and its conclusions anchored on its findings are accorded by the appellate court high respect, if not conclusive effect, more so when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, as in this case. (Citations omitted.) In this case, the vivid and detailed testimonies of prosecution witnesses PO2 Lique and MADAC operative Abellana were not only credible by themselves, but were corroborated by numerous documentary and object evidence. The sum of the evidence for the prosecution shows that following the conduct of a surveillance, the Makati City SAID-SOTF planned and executed a buy-bust operation against accused-appellant on May 16, 2006. During the operation, accused-appellant was caught in flagrante delicto selling 0.02 grams of shabu for Three Hundred Pesos (P300.00) and possessing a total of 0.24 grams of shabu, without any legal authority to do so. | |||||
|
2012-02-08 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In the prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be established: (1) identities of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof.[12] What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti. The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and the accused.[13] In other words, the commission of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu, merely requires the consummation of the selling transaction, which happens the moment the exchange of money and drugs between the buyer and the seller takes place. | |||||
|
2010-10-11 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| A thorough review of the records reveals that there is no broken chain in the custody of the seized items, later on determined to be shabu, from the moment of their confiscation by the buy-bust team, to their turn-over at the police station, to the time same were brought to the forensic chemist for examination, and their subsequent presentation in court during trial. It was duly established by documentary, testimonial, and object evidence, including the markings on the plastic sachets containing the shabu, that the substance examined by the forensic chemist was the same as that taken from appellant.[31] | |||||
|
2010-08-08 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| A successful prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs must establish the following elements: (1) identities of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[21] In the prosecution for illegal sale of shabu, what is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place and the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence.[22] | |||||