Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. AISA MUSA Y PINASILO

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 192075 2016-02-10	ROBERTO PALO Y DE GULA v. PEOPLE PEREZ, J.
The essence of the chain of custody rule is to make sure that the dangerous drug presented in court as evidence against the accused is the same dangerous drug recovered from his or her possession.[21]
	GR No. 203048 2014-08-13	PEOPLE v. RUSTY BALA PEREZ, J.
Appellant's defenses, which are predicated on denial and frame-up, are invariably viewed with disfavor because such defenses can easily be fabricated and are common ploy in prosecutions for the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs.[19] They deserve scant consideration in light of the positive testimonies of the police officers.
	GR No. 209785 2014-06-04	PEOPLE v. MARLON ABETONG Y ENDRADO VELASCO JR., J.
The case People v. Musa[5] was instrumental for the CA in justifying leniency in the compliance with Sec. 21 of RA 9165. Relying on the case, the CA dispensed with several procedural requirements resulting in accused-appellant's conviction. As cited:Since the "perfect chain" is almost always impossible to obtain, non-compliance with Sec. 21 of RA 9165, as stated in the Implementing Rules and Regulations, does not, without more, automatically render the seizure of the dangerous drug void, and evidence is admissible as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team.
	GR No. 200304 2014-01-15	PEOPLE v. DONALD VASQUEZ Y SANDIGAN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
It is apropos to reiterate here that where there is no showing that the trial court overlooked or misinterpreted some material facts or that it gravely abused its discretion, the Court will not disturb the trial court's assessment of the facts and the credibility of the witnesses since the RTC was in a better position to assess and weigh the evidence presented during trial. Settled too is the rule that the factual findings of the appellate court sustaining those of the trial court are binding on this Court, unless there is a clear showing that such findings are tainted with arbitrariness, capriciousness or palpable error.[62]