This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2016-01-11 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Moreover, "factual findings of the trial court and its evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to great respect and will not be disturbed on appeal, unless the trial court is shown to have overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied any fact or circumstance of weight and substance."[27] | |||||
|
2015-08-17 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Chain of custody means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction.[22] What assumes primary importance in drug cases is the prosecution's proof, to the point of moral certainty, that the prohibited drug presented in court as evidence against the accused is the same item recovered from his possession.[23] | |||||
|
2013-12-11 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The Court cannot accord merit to the accused-appellant's claim that the foregoing events did not take place because she was actually framed-up. Such argument brings to the fore the appreciation by the trial court of the credibility of witnesses, a matter it is most competent to perform having had the first hand opportunity to observe and assess the conduct and demeanor of witnesses.[47] Settled is the rule that the evaluation by the trial court of the credibility of witnesses is entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed on appeal.[48] | |||||