Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ROLANDO TAMAYO Y TENA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 176077 2011-08-31	ABRAHAM MICLAT v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
It is a settled rule that in cases involving violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner.[28] Although not constrained to blindly accept the findings of fact of trial courts, appellate courts can rest assured that such facts were gathered from witnesses who presented their statements live and in person in open court. In cases where conflicting sets of facts are presented, the trial courts are in the best position to recognize and distinguish spontaneous declaration from rehearsed spiel, straightforward assertion from a stuttering claim, definite statement from tentative disclosure, and to a certain degree, truth from untruth.[29]
	GR No. 182178 2011-08-15	STEPHEN SY Y TIBAGONG v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
It is a settled rule that in cases involving violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner.[17]
	GR No. 191754 2011-04-11	PEOPLE v. GREGORIO FELIPE Y CALINGANGAN PERALTA, J.
It is a settled rule that in cases involving violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner.[17] This presumption can only be overturned through clear and convincing evidence that show either of two things: (1) that they were not properly performing their duty; or (2) that they were inspired by any improper motive.[18] In the absence of clear and convincing evidence of the foregoing, as in the case at bar, this Court cannot accept the defense of bare denial and, instead, apply the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the law enforcement officers.
	GR No. 191392 2011-03-14	PEOPLE v. ROLLY SORIAGA Y STO. DOMINGO MENDOZA, J.
In the absence of any showing that substantial or relevant facts bearing on the elements of the crime have been misapplied or overlooked, the 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 at the trial.[10]
	GR No. 188847 2011-01-31	PEOPLE v. RUFINO VICENTE VELASCO JR., J.
Prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation.[21] Oft-repeated is the rule that in cases involving violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary.[22] Absent any indication that the police officers were ill-motivated in testifying against the accused, full credence should be given to their testimonies.[23]
	GR No. 185166 2011-01-26	PEOPLE v. MARK LESTER DELA ROSA Y SUELLO PEREZ, J.
For illegal possession of a dangerous drug, like marijuana, it must be shown that (1) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug, (2) such possession is not authorized by law, and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug.[44]