Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ROLLY SORIAGA Y STO. DOMINGO

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 207988 2015-03-11	PEOPLE v. BRIAN MERCADO Y SARMIENTO PEREZ, J.
To reiterate, in the absence of any showing that substantial or relevant facts bearing on the elements of the crime have been misapplied or overlooked, this Court can only accord full credence to such factual assessment of the trial court which had the distinct advantage of observing the demeanor and conduct of the witnesses during the trial. Absent any proof of motive to falsely charge an accused of such a grave offense, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and the findings of the trial court with respect to the credibility of witnesses shall prevail over his/her bare allegation.[26]
	GR No. 196146 2014-03-12	PEOPLE v. FREDDIE LADIP Y RUBIO PEREZ, J.
Again, in the absence of any showing that substantial or relevant facts bearing on the elements of the crime have been misapplied or overlooked, this Court can only accord full credence to such factual assessment of the trial court which had the distinct advantage of observing the demeanor and conduct of the witnesses during the trial. Absent any proof of motive to falsely charge an accused of such a grave offense, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and the findings of the trial court with respect to the credibility of witnesses shall prevail over his bare allegation.[33]
	GR No. 181826 2013-01-09	PEOPLE v. HONG YEN E ABAD, J.
Three. As to the accused's argument that the NBI operatives failed to observe the chain of custody rule in dangerous drugs cases, we do not agree. The alleged failure of the apprehending team to inventory and photograph the confiscated items immediately after the operation, is not fatal to the prosecution's cause. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be used in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[15] Here, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs had been preserved as there is evidence to account for the crucial links in the chain of custody of the seized shabu, starting from its confiscation to its presentation as evidence in the RTC.
	GR No. 186530 2011-12-14	PEOPLE v. NELLY ULAMA Y ARRISMA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
On the issue of non-compliance with the prescribed procedures in the inventory of seized drugs, the rule is that it does not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him/[her] inadmissible. The requirements under R.A. No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) are not inflexible. What is essential is "the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused."[19]