Lawyerly

GR No. 197250

2013-07-17

PEOPLE v. REYNALDO “ANDY” SOMOZA Y HANDAYA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Moreover, the prosecution has satisfied the requirement that the testimonies of all persons who handled the specimen are important to establish the chain of custody.[59] PO1 Bautista testified that she kept the sachet sold to him by accused-appellant, that she seized the other six sachets from accused-appellant and that she subsequently transferred all sachets in her possession to NBI Agent Celon. NBI Agent Celon stated that he received from PO1 Bautista the sachet bought by her and the sachets seized by her from accused-appellant, that he marked these items, that he inventoried them, that he requested authority from the court to retain custody of them, and that he submitted them to the PNP forensic laboratory. P/S Insp. Dagasdas attested that she received the specimens from NBI Agent Celon, that she conducted the laboratory examination and that she issued a sworn certification regarding the results of her examination. Thus, all persons who handled the shabu seized from accused-appellant testified on how they came to take custody of the illicit drugs, what they did with the said drugs and to whom they subsequently transferred such drugs. Their testimonies established a continuous chain of custody which preserved the identity, integrity and evidentiary value of the dangerous drugs seized from accused-appellant.

GR No. 191391

2013-06-19

PEOPLE v. BENEDICT HOMAKY LUCIO

PEREZ, J.

In this case, the question as to what part of the body of the accused did the police officers recover the money does not dissolve the elements of illegal sale and possession as minor inconsistencies do not negate or dissolve the eyewitnesses' positive identification of the appellant as the perpetrator of the crime.[69] Minor inconsistencies in the narration of PO1 Castro, PO1 Labbutan and SPO4 Lucas do not detract from their essential credibility as long as their testimony on the whole is coherent and intrinsically believable.[70]

GR No. 190343

2013-02-06

PEOPLE v. SAIBEN LANGCUA Y DAIMLA

PEREZ, J.

As held in the case of People v. Gonzaga,[42] minor inconsistencies do not negate or dissolve the eyewitnesses' positive identification of the appellant as the perpetrator of the crime.[43] "[M]inor inconsistencies in the narration of witnesses do not detract from their essential credibility as long as their testimony on the whole is coherent and intrinsically believable. Inaccuracies may in fact suggest that the witnesses are telling the truth and have not been rehearsed. Witnesses are not expected to remember every single detail of an incident with perfect or total recall."[44] "[T]he witnesses' testimonies need only to corroborate one another on material details surrounding the actual commission of the crime."[45]

GR No. 194836

2011-06-15

PEOPLE v. ARNOLD CASTRO Y YANGA

VELASCO JR., J.

Further, in the absence of any intent on the part of the police authorities to falsely impute such crime against the accused, the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty should stand. [78]

GR No. 188608

2011-02-09

PEOPLE v. RONALDO MORALES Y FLORES

PEREZ, J.

The inconsistencies or contradictions pointed by appellants relating to the time of surveillance are not material to establish the elements of the crime committed. They are certainly not sufficient to overturn their conviction. Time and again, this Court has ruled that the witnesses' testimonies need only to corroborate one another on material details surrounding the actual commission of the crime.[25]

GR No. 191198

2011-01-26

PEOPLE v. NENE QUIAMANLON Y MALOG

VELASCO JR., J.

A bare denial is an inherently weak defense[44] and has been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor, for it can be easily concocted but difficult to prove, and is a common standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from violations of RA 9165.[45] And in the absence of any intent on the part of the police authorities to falsely impute such crime against the accused, the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty stands.[46]

GR No. 185163

2011-01-17

PEOPLE v. CARLO MAGNO AURE Y ARNALDO

VELASCO JR., J.

In the absence of any intent on the part of the police authorities to falsely impute such crime against the accused-appellants, the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty stands.[44] Especially here, where an astute analysis of MADAC operative Bilason's testimony does not indicate any inconsistency, contradiction, or fabrication.

GR No. 184952

2010-10-11

PEOPLE v. MARIANITO GONZAGA Y JOMAYA

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Furthermore, minor inconsistencies do not negate or dissolve the eyewitnesses' positive identification of the appellant as the perpetrator of the crime.[24] "[M]inor inconsistencies in the narration of witnesses do not detract from their essential credibility as long as their testimony on the whole is coherent and intrinsically believable. Inaccuracies may in fact suggest that the witnesses are telling the truth and have not been rehearsed. x x x Witnesses are not expected to remember every single detail of an incident with perfect or total recall."[25] "The witnesses' testimonies need only to corroborate one another on material details surrounding the actual commission of the crime."[26]

GR No. 187741

2010-08-08

PEOPLE v. PETER M. CAMPOMANES

MENDOZA, J.

Thus, the Court 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.[25] This arises from the fact that the lower courts 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.[26]

GR No. 186419

2010-04-23

PEOPLE v. DARLENE QUIGOD Y MIRANDA

VELASCO JR., J.

Also, in the absence of any intent on the part of the police authorities to falsely impute such crime against the accused-appellant, the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty stands.[43] More so in the instant case, where an assiduous analysis of SPO2 Jamila's testimony does not indicate any inconsistency, contradiction or fabrication. In addition, SPO2 Jamila testified that prior to the incident, he does not know accused-appellant.

	GR No. 197250 2013-07-17	PEOPLE v. REYNALDO “ANDY” SOMOZA Y HANDAYA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Moreover, the prosecution has satisfied the requirement that the testimonies of all persons who handled the specimen are important to establish the chain of custody.[59] PO1 Bautista testified that she kept the sachet sold to him by accused-appellant, that she seized the other six sachets from accused-appellant and that she subsequently transferred all sachets in her possession to NBI Agent Celon. NBI Agent Celon stated that he received from PO1 Bautista the sachet bought by her and the sachets seized by her from accused-appellant, that he marked these items, that he inventoried them, that he requested authority from the court to retain custody of them, and that he submitted them to the PNP forensic laboratory. P/S Insp. Dagasdas attested that she received the specimens from NBI Agent Celon, that she conducted the laboratory examination and that she issued a sworn certification regarding the results of her examination. Thus, all persons who handled the shabu seized from accused-appellant testified on how they came to take custody of the illicit drugs, what they did with the said drugs and to whom they subsequently transferred such drugs. Their testimonies established a continuous chain of custody which preserved the identity, integrity and evidentiary value of the dangerous drugs seized from accused-appellant.
	GR No. 191391 2013-06-19	PEOPLE v. BENEDICT HOMAKY LUCIO PEREZ, J.
In this case, the question as to what part of the body of the accused did the police officers recover the money does not dissolve the elements of illegal sale and possession as minor inconsistencies do not negate or dissolve the eyewitnesses' positive identification of the appellant as the perpetrator of the crime.[69] Minor inconsistencies in the narration of PO1 Castro, PO1 Labbutan and SPO4 Lucas do not detract from their essential credibility as long as their testimony on the whole is coherent and intrinsically believable.[70]
	GR No. 190343 2013-02-06	PEOPLE v. SAIBEN LANGCUA Y DAIMLA PEREZ, J.
As held in the case of People v. Gonzaga,[42] minor inconsistencies do not negate or dissolve the eyewitnesses' positive identification of the appellant as the perpetrator of the crime.[43] "[M]inor inconsistencies in the narration of witnesses do not detract from their essential credibility as long as their testimony on the whole is coherent and intrinsically believable. Inaccuracies may in fact suggest that the witnesses are telling the truth and have not been rehearsed. Witnesses are not expected to remember every single detail of an incident with perfect or total recall."[44] "[T]he witnesses' testimonies need only to corroborate one another on material details surrounding the actual commission of the crime."[45]
	GR No. 194836 2011-06-15	PEOPLE v. ARNOLD CASTRO Y YANGA VELASCO JR., J.
Further, in the absence of any intent on the part of the police authorities to falsely impute such crime against the accused, the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty should stand. [78]
	GR No. 188608 2011-02-09	PEOPLE v. RONALDO MORALES Y FLORES PEREZ, J.
The inconsistencies or contradictions pointed by appellants relating to the time of surveillance are not material to establish the elements of the crime committed. They are certainly not sufficient to overturn their conviction. Time and again, this Court has ruled that the witnesses' testimonies need only to corroborate one another on material details surrounding the actual commission of the crime.[25]
	GR No. 191198 2011-01-26	PEOPLE v. NENE QUIAMANLON Y MALOG VELASCO JR., J.
A bare denial is an inherently weak defense[44] and has been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor, for it can be easily concocted but difficult to prove, and is a common standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from violations of RA 9165.[45] And in the absence of any intent on the part of the police authorities to falsely impute such crime against the accused, the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty stands.[46]
	GR No. 185163 2011-01-17	PEOPLE v. CARLO MAGNO AURE Y ARNALDO VELASCO JR., J.
In the absence of any intent on the part of the police authorities to falsely impute such crime against the accused-appellants, the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty stands.[44] Especially here, where an astute analysis of MADAC operative Bilason's testimony does not indicate any inconsistency, contradiction, or fabrication.
	GR No. 184952 2010-10-11	PEOPLE v. MARIANITO GONZAGA Y JOMAYA DEL CASTILLO, J.
Furthermore, minor inconsistencies do not negate or dissolve the eyewitnesses' positive identification of the appellant as the perpetrator of the crime.[24] "[M]inor inconsistencies in the narration of witnesses do not detract from their essential credibility as long as their testimony on the whole is coherent and intrinsically believable. Inaccuracies may in fact suggest that the witnesses are telling the truth and have not been rehearsed. x x x Witnesses are not expected to remember every single detail of an incident with perfect or total recall."[25] "The witnesses' testimonies need only to corroborate one another on material details surrounding the actual commission of the crime."[26]
	GR No. 187741 2010-08-08	PEOPLE v. PETER M. CAMPOMANES MENDOZA, J.
Thus, the Court 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.[25] This arises from the fact that the lower courts 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.[26]
	GR No. 186419 2010-04-23	PEOPLE v. DARLENE QUIGOD Y MIRANDA VELASCO JR., J.
Also, in the absence of any intent on the part of the police authorities to falsely impute such crime against the accused-appellant, the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty stands.[43] More so in the instant case, where an assiduous analysis of SPO2 Jamila's testimony does not indicate any inconsistency, contradiction or fabrication. In addition, SPO2 Jamila testified that prior to the incident, he does not know accused-appellant.

PEOPLE v. DANILO CRUZ Y CULALA