This case has been cited 19 times or more.
|
2015-11-09 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Great weight was likewise accorded to the trial court's factual finding that the testimonies given by the police officers were unequivocal, detailed, and straightforward, prevailing over appellant's mere allegation of frame-up and forcible abduction. The appellate court cites the oft-repeated rule that unless there appears on record some fact or circumstance of weight and influence which the trial court has overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted, it shall not interfere with the assessment of the credibility of the witnesses.[16] As to the conduct of a buy-bust operation, moreover, People v. Ahmad[17] ruled that police officers are assumed to have the expertise to determine which specific approaches are necessary to enforce their entrapment operation. | |||||
|
2011-06-01 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Essentially, in a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu in this case, the following elements must concur: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration of the sale; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[44] The commission of the offense of illegal sale of prohibited drugs requires merely the consummation of the selling transaction, which happens the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller.[45] Thus, what is material to a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is proof that the illicit transaction took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.[46] Such proof is present in this case. | |||||
|
2010-07-05 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Also undeserving of serious consideration is appellant's defense that there was no buy-bust operation.The trial court found undeserving of credence appellant's self-serving testimony and defense witness Chona Martin's assertion that it was merely by chance that she saw appellant and pointed him to the police officers as the person peddling illegal drugs. The trial court, in fact, branded Chona Martin's testimony as obviously fabricated.[35] It is a fundamental 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 and speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings.The reason for this is that the trial court is in a better position to decide the credibility of witnesses, having heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[36]The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the CA.[37]As there appears no cogent reason to depart from the findings of the trial court and the CA, we stand by their findings. | |||||
|
2010-03-03 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| This Court has consistently relied upon the assessment of the trial court, which had the opportunity to observe the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses during the trial. It is a fundamental 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. The reason for this is that the trial court is in a better position to decide the credibility of witnesses, having heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[21] In this case, appellant has not sufficiently demonstrated the application of any of the aforementioned exceptions. | |||||
|
2010-02-22 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| It is a fundamental rule that the trial court's findings that are factual in nature and that 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.[20] The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the CA.[21] However, this rule will not apply in this case. As will be discussed shortly, the courts below overlooked two significant and substantial facts which if considered, as we do now consider, will affect the outcome of the case. | |||||
|
2009-09-11 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| 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.[14] 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.[15] 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.[16] 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. | |||||
|
2009-06-22 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| We find the testimonies of PO1 Marchan and PO2 Germodo credible and straightforward. It is a fundamental rule that the trial court's findings that are factual in nature and that 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. The reason for this is that the trial court was in a better position to decide the credibility of witnesses, having heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[25] The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals.[26] There being no compelling reasons to deviate from the findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals, we stick by their findings. | |||||
|
2008-10-17 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant was arrested in flagrante delicto in a buy-bust operation which is a form of entrapment which in recent years has been accepted to be a valid and effective mode of apprehending drug pushers. In a buy-bust operation, ways and means are employed for the purpose of trapping and capturing lawbreakers in the execution of their plan.[26] The idea to commit a crime originates from the offender, without anybody inducing or prodding him to commit the offense.[27] If carried out with due regard for constitutional and legal safeguards, a buy-bust operation deserves judicial sanction. | |||||
|
2008-06-27 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| After reviewing the evidence on record, we find the testimonies of the poseur-buyer and his back-up, as well as the dangerous drug seized from appellants, more than sufficient to prove the crime charged. 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, which had the distinct advantage of observing the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses during trial. It is a fundamental 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 and speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. The reason for this is that the trial court is in a better position to decide the credibility of witnesses having heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[38] | |||||
|
2008-06-17 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In the case before us, we find the testimony of the poseur-buyer, together with the dangerous drug taken from the appellant, more than sufficient to prove the crime charged. 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, which had the distinct advantage of observing the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses during the trial. It is a fundamental 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. The reason for this is that the trial court is in a better position to decide the credibility of witnesses, having heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[28] | |||||
|
2008-04-23 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In the case before us, we find the testimony of the poseur-buyer, together with the dangerous drug taken from appellant, more than sufficient to prove the crime charged. 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, which had the distinct advantage of observing the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses during trial. It is a fundamental 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 and speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. The reason for this is that the trial court is in a better position to decide the credibility of witnesses having heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[26] | |||||
|
2007-10-02 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment whereby ways and means are employed for the purpose of trapping and capturing lawbreakers in the execution of their plan.[19] It has become a familiar and much-resorted to procedure to apprehend lawless elements and to put a dent on the proliferation of criminal activities. In particular, its use has been proven effective in putting an end to the illicit business of drug peddlers who are susceptible to deal with anyone willing to purchase their goods even if the prospective buyer is a total stranger. Unless there is a clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or were not properly performing their duty, their testimonies with respect to the operation deserve full faith and credit.[20] | |||||
|
2007-08-31 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In the case at bar, we find the testimonies of PO1 Joselito Esmallaner and SPO3 Leneal Matias credible. It is a fundamental rule that findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve credibility are accorded respects when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts and speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. The reason for this is that the trial court is in a better position to decide the credibility of witnesses, having heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[51] The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals.[52] Finding no reason to depart from the findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals, we stand by their findings. | |||||
|
2007-02-12 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is a fundamental rule that findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve the credibility of witnesses are accorded respect when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts and speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. The reason for this, being, that the trial court is in a better position to decide the credibility of witnesses having heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[37] The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals as in this case.[38] | |||||
|
2004-06-09 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Q What is the connection of the plastic bag that you have recovered on top of the water lily leaves with the one that you saw being thrown by the person inside the room? A This is the very same item that I saw this other person inside the room throwing out of the window." Certainly, credence should be given to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses as they are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner.[9] | |||||
|
2004-01-21 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| In all, there does not appear on record to be "some fact or circumstance of weight and influence which the trial court has overlooked or the significance of which it has misapprehended or misinterpreted. "[24] We rely, therefore, on the competence of the trial court to decide the question of credibility of the witnesses, having heard them and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial."[25] | |||||
|
2003-09-18 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| The credibility of the witnesses is the issue at hand. It is an oft-repeated rule that 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. The reason for this rule is 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.[13] | |||||
|
2002-12-17 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Colaler and other members of the entrapment team were concurrent on material points, replete with relevant details, and sufficiently supportive of the RTC's conclusions.[25] Absent any persuasive evidence showing that they testified falsely, the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive existed, and that their testimonies are worthy of full faith and credit.[26] Further, the collective testimonies of these prosecution witnesses were corroborated by the physical evidence on record as contained in Chemistry Report No. D-0011-99.[27] Upon laboratory examination, the white crystalline substance found in appellants' | |||||
|
2002-09-24 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Verily, the defense has failed to convince us that the trial court's Decision should be disbelieved or modified, much less reversed.[39] First, incredible is the story of appellant that upon his arrival at Our Lady of Grace Church, men in civilian clothes blocked his way and effected the arrest while pointing their handguns at him.[40] He offered no evidence that they had been improperly or maliciously motivated.[41] Neither did he give any satisfactory explanation why the Drug Enforcement Unit agents would single out his car from among the many vehicles that passed 11th Avenue in Caloocan City on that particular day, just to frame him up and extort money from him.[42] The records show that there was no prior surveillance of appellant conducted prior to his arrest. For the purpose of showing that the agents had meant to extort a huge sum of money from him, he did not present any evidence showing that they had known him prior to the | |||||