Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ALBERT CASIMIRO Y SERILLO

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 190749 2012-04-25	VALENTIN ZAFRA Y DECHOSA v. PEOPLE PEREZ, J.
While, it is hornbook doctrine that the evaluation of the trial court on the credibility of the witness and the testimony is entitled to great weight and is generally not disturbed upon appeal,[23] such rule does not apply when the trial court has overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied any fact of weight or substance.[24] In the instant case, these circumstances are present, that, when properly appreciated, would warrant the acquittal of petitioners.
	GR No. 192188 2011-04-11	PEOPLE v. ANDREW ROBLE VELASCO JR., J.
It is hornbook doctrine that the evaluation of the trial court of the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies is entitled to great weight and is generally not disturbed upon appeal. However, such rule does not apply when the trial court has overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied any fact of weight or substance.[33] In the instant case, circumstances are present that, when properly appreciated, would warrant the acquittal of accused-appellant.
	GR No. 189844 2010-11-15	PEOPLE v. MARIO VILLANUEVA BAGA VELASCO JR., J.
As a rule, the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies is entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal. This rule does not apply where it is shown that any fact of weight and substance has been overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied by the trial court.[7] In the instant case, there are circumstances, which, when properly appreciated, would warrant accused-appellant's acquittal.
	GR No. 148668 2003-06-17	PEOPLE v. TONY PEDRONAN Y LIMMAYOG YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Although the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies is entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal, this rule does not apply where it is shown that any fact of weight and substance has been overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied by the trial court.[30] In the case at bar, several circumstances warrant the appellant's acquittal.
	GR No. 148668 2003-06-17	PEOPLE v. TONY PEDRONAN Y LIMMAYOG YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In this case, the prosecution failed to prove the crucial first link in the chain of custody. There is a serious cloud of doubt as to whether the marijuana bricks allegedly seized from the appellant were the same bricks marked and forwarded by the police officers to the crime laboratory for examination and later presented in court for identification. In People v. Casimiro,[40] this Court held:
	GR Nos. 137458-59 2003-04-24	PEOPLE v. JESUS G. BATOCTOY QUISUMBING, J.
In drug-related cases, it is imperative that the prosecution establish the identity of the illegal drug, which constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense.[49] Strangely, no sample of "shabu" tested by the NBI Forensic Chemist, which was allegedly seized from the appellants, was presented in court. The specimen substance, which tested positive for "shabu" was supposedly discarded and could no longer be located, according to the testimony of NBI Forensic Chemist Purificando.[50] Absent both the marked money and the illegal drugs allegedly sold to them, the prosecution has no hard proof of the fact of payment as well as of delivery other than the naked claims of Palencia and Soriano. All these do not inspire confidence in the prosecution's version of the incident, because the testimonies of the lawmen are replete with inconsistencies. Here, we find that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty is negated by their deeds as well as by their words given on the witness stand.
	GR Nos. 136066-67 2003-02-04	PEOPLE v. BINAD SY CHUA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Furthermore, we entertain doubts whether the items allegedly seized from accused-appellant were the very same items presented at the trial of this case. The record shows that the initial field test where the items seized were identified as shabu, was only conducted at the PNP headquarters of Angeles City.[33] The items were therefore not marked at the place where they were taken. In People v. Casimiro,[34] we struck down with disbelief the reliability of the identity of the confiscated items since they were not marked at the place where they were seized, thus:The narcotics field test, which initially identified the seized item as marijuana, was likewise not conducted at the scene of the crime, but only at the narcotics office. There is thus reasonable doubt as to whether the item allegedly seized from accused-appellant is the same brick of marijuana marked by the policemen in their headquarters and given by them to the crime laboratory.