Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. BERTHA PRESAS Y TOLENTINO

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 211199 2015-03-25	PEOPLE v. RANDY ROLLO Y LAGASCA PEREZ, J.
The failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the required physical inventory in the place where the subject shabu was seized does not automatically render accused's arrest illegal or the items seized from him inadmissible. A proviso was added in the implementing rules that "non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items." Pertinently, it is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items which must be proven to establish the corpus delicti.[17]
	GR No. 200507 2013-06-26	PEOPLE v. PETER LINDA Y GEROLAGA PEREZ, J.
Settled are the rule that "findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve credibility are accorded respect when no glaring errors; gross misapprehension of facts; or speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings,"[16] and that "the determination by the trial court of the credibility of witnesses, when affirmed by the appellate court, is accorded full weight and credit as well as great respect, if not conclusive effect."[17]
	GR No. 195777 2013-06-19	PEOPLE v. FERDINAND CASTRO Y LAPENA PEREZ, J.
Thus, we have said, time and again, that "findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve credibility are accorded respect when no glaring errors; gross misapprehension of facts; or speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings."[23] Also, "the determination by the trial court of the credibility of witnesses, when affirmed by the appellate court, is accorded full weight and credit as well as great respect, if not conclusive effect."[24]
	GR No. 199735 2012-10-24	PEOPLE v. AISA MUSA Y PINASILO VELASCO JR., J.
It is likewise significant to note that a similar conclusion was reached in People v. Presas[31] where the Court disposed, as follows: In this case, the failure on the part of the MADAC operatives to take photographs and make an inventory of the drugs seized from the appellant was not fatal because the prosecution was able to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the said illegal drugs. The concurrence of all elements of the illegal sale of shabu was proven by the prosecution. The chain of custody did not appear to be broken. The recovery and handling of the seized drugs were satisfactorily established. Fariñas was able to put the necessary markings on the plastic sachet of shabu bought from appellant immediately after the consummation of the drug sale. This was done in the presence of appellant and the other operatives, and while in the crime scene. The seized items were then brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination on the same day. Both prosecution witnesses were able to identify and explain said markings in court. (Emphasis supplied.)
	GR No. 194721 2012-08-15	PEOPLE v. JOHN BRIAN AMARILLO Y MAPA PEREZ, J.
As to the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies, we hold, as we have done time and again, that "the determination by the trial court of the credibility of witnesses, when affirmed by the appellate court, is accorded full weight and credit as well as great respect, if not conclusive effect"[27] and that "findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve credibility are accorded respect when no glaring errors; gross misapprehension of facts; or speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings."[28]
	GR No. 182059 2012-07-04	PEOPLE v. CAMILO D. NICART PEREZ, J.
Time and again, we hold that the "findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve credibility are accorded respect when no glaring errors; gross misapprehension of facts; or speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings."[16] Likewise basic is the rule that "the determination by the trial court of the credibility of witnesses, when affirmed by the appellate court, is accorded full weight and credit as well as great respect, if not conclusive effect."[17]
	GR No. 183676 2011-06-22	RUEL AMPATUAN 'ALIAS RUEL v. PEOPLE PEREZ, J.
a) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items. (Emphasis ours) [31]
	GR No. 191266 2011-06-06	PEOPLE v. DARIUS BAUTISTA Y ORSINO VELASCO JR., J.
We have ruled time and again that non-compliance with the afore-quoted provisions does not render the seizure of the dangerous drug void and the evidence inadmissible. [52] Conversely, the absence of a showing that the apprehending officer did not make an inventory of the seized items and that he did not take photographs of them is not fatal. [53]