Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. CHRISTOPHER DESUYO Y BUEN

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 215714 2015-08-12	OF PHILIPPINES v. EFREN BASAL CAYAS VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Moreover, in weighing the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses vis-à-vis those of the defense, the RTC gave more credence to the version of the prosecution, to which this Court finds no reason to disagree. It is established that in the absence of palpable error or grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge, the trial court’s evaluation of the credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal.[28] Prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conduct the buy-bust operation and appellate courts, upon established precedents and of necessity, rely on the assessment of the credibility of witnesses by the trial courts which have the unique opportunity, unavailable to the appellate courts, to observe the witnesses and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under direct and cross-examination.[29]
	GR No. 209338 2015-06-29	PEOPLE v. BIENVENIDO MIRANDA Y FELICIANO VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Moreover, it bears stressing that in weighing the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses vis-à-vis those of the defense, the RTC gave more credence to the version of the prosecution. This Court finds no reason to disagree. Well-settled is the rule that in the absence of palpable error or grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge, the trial court’s evaluation of the credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal.[38] Prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conduct the “buy-bust” operation and appellate courts, upon established precedents and of necessity, rely on the assessment of the credibility of witnesses by the trial courts which have the unique opportunity, unavailable to the appellate courts, to observe the witnesses and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under direct and cross-examination.[39]
	GR No. 195850 2015-02-16	PEOPLE v. ABOLA BIO Y PANAYANGAN DEL CASTILLO, J.
To sustain a conviction under Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165, all that is needed for the prosecution to establish are (1) the identity of the buyer, seller, object and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[11] In illegal possession of dangerous drugs, on the other hand, it is necessary to prove that: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and, (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.[12]
	GR No. 202837 2015-01-21	PEOPLE v. RAKIM MINANGA Y DUMANSAL VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Moreover, in weighing the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses vis-à-vis those of the defense, the RTC gave more credence to the version of the prosecution, to which this Court finds no reason to disagree. Well-settled is the rule that in the absence of palpable error or grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge, the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal.[30] Prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conduct the "buy-bust" operation and appellate courts, upon established precedents and of necessity, rely on the assessment of the credibility of witnesses by the trial courts which have the unique opportunity, unavailable to the appellate courts, to observe the witnesses and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under direct and cross-examination.[31]
	GR No. 177324 2011-03-30	PEOPLE v. REYNALD DELA CRUZ Y LIBANTOCIA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
We note further that the defense raised its objection and questioned the integrity of the shabu allegedly seized from Dela Cruz only on appeal. Failure to raise this issue during trial is fatal to the case of the defense.[30] We explained in People v. Sta. Maria[31] that: The law excuses non-compliance under justifiable grounds. However, whatever justifiable grounds may excuse the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation in this case from complying with Section 21 will remain unknown, because appellant did not question during trial the safekeeping of the items seized from him. Indeed, the police officers' alleged violations of Sections 21 and 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 were not raised before the trial court but were instead raised for the first time on appeal. In no instance did appellant least intimate at the trial court that there were lapses in the safekeeping of seized items that affected their integrity and evidentiary value. Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of objection. Without such objection he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal.[32]