Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ELIZABETH MARCELINO Y REYES

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 215714 2015-08-12	OF PHILIPPINES v. EFREN BASAL CAYAS VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The Court gives full faith and credence to the testimonies of the police officers and upholds the presumption of regularity in the apprehending officers’ performance of official duty. It is a settled rule that in cases involving violations of the 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.[26]
	GR No. 209338 2015-06-29	PEOPLE v. BIENVENIDO MIRANDA Y FELICIANO VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The Court gives full faith and credence to the testimonies of the police officers and upholds the presumption of regularity in the apprehending officers’ performance of official duty. It is a settled rule that in cases involving violations of the 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.[35]
	GR No. 202837 2015-01-21	PEOPLE v. RAKIM MINANGA Y DUMANSAL VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The Court gives full faith and credence to the testimonies of the police officers and upholds the presumption of regularity in the apprehending officers' performance of official duty. It is a settled rule that in cases involving violations of the 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.[27]
	GR No. 194499 2015-01-14	MANUEL R. PORTUGUEZ v. PEOPLE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The Court gives full faith and credence to the testimonies of the police officers and upholds the presumption of regularity in the apprehending officers' performance of official duty. It is a settled rule that in cases involving violations of the 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.[29] However, petitioner failed to present clear and convincing evidence to overturn the presumption that the arresting officers regularly performed their duties. Except for his bare allegations of denial and frame-up, and that the police officers had mistakenly identified him as Bobot, his younger brother, nothing supports his claim that the police officers were impelled by improper motives to testify against him. Needless to stress, the integrity of the evidence is presumed to be preserved, unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with.[30] On petitioner's claim that at the time of his arrest, Bobot was actually confined in a rehabilitation center in Bicutan,[31] we note that petitioner failed to fulfill his promise[32] to prove it as fact.
	GR No. 203433 2013-11-27	PEOPLE v. FAISAL LOKS Y PELONYO REYES, J.
"[A] buy-bust operation is a legally effective and proven procedure, sanctioned by law, for apprehending drug peddlers and distributors."[23] Since Loks was caught by the buy-bust team in flagrante delicto, his immediate arrest was also validly made. The accused was caught in the act and had to be apprehended on the spot. From the very nature of a buy-bust operation, the absence of a warrant did not make the arrest illegal.[24] Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court authorizes a warrantless arrest by a peace officer and even a private person "when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed or is attempting to commit an offense." The legitimate warrantless arrest also cloaks the arresting police officer with the authority to validly search and seize from the offender those that may be used to prove the commission of the offense.[25]
	GR No. 192913 2013-06-13	PEOPLE v. JOEL REBOTAZO Y ALEJANDRIA SERENO, C.J.
As we held in People v. Marcelino,[58] the illegal drug seized was not the "fruit of the poisonous tree," as the defense would have this Court to believe. The seizure made by the buy-bust team falls under a search incidental to a lawful arrest under Rule 126, Section 13 of the Rules of Court.[59] Since the buy-bust operation was established as legitimate, it follows that the search was also valid, and a warrant was not needed to conduct it.[60]
	GR No. 194580 2011-08-31	PEOPLE v. ADRIANO PASCUA Y CONCEPCION VELASCO JR., J.
[12] People v. Marcelino, G.R. No. 189278, July 26, 2010, 625 SCRA 632, 641; citing People v. Alberto, G.R. No. 179717, February 5, 2010, 611 SCRA 706, 718.
	GR No. 193184 2011-02-07	PEOPLE v. MICHAEL ANDRES Y TRINIDAD MENDOZA, J.
The Court gives full faith and credence to the testimonies of the police officers and upholds the presumption of regularity in the apprehending officers' performance of official duty. It is a settled rule that in cases involving violations of the 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.[4]
	GR No. 191064 2010-10-20	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO ARANETA Y ABELLA MENDOZA, J.
Since the buy-bust operation was established as legitimate, it follows that the search was also valid, and a warrant was likewise not needed to conduct it.[8]