This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-11-27 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, the testimony of PO2 Santos and PO1 Chavez survived the scrutiny of both the trial court judge and the defense counsel and was adjudged to be credible and worthy of belief not only by the trial court but also by the appellate court. This is significant considering that we have stated in jurisprudence that the successful prosecution of drug cases is dependent, in large part, to the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation.[19] In this case, we find no reason to question the credibility of the prosecution witnesses considering that, time and again, we have held that the determination of the credibility of witnesses by the trial court, when affirmed by the appellate court, is accorded full weight and credit as well as great respect, if not conclusive effect.[20] | |||||
|
2013-06-13 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| The prosecution of cases involving illegal drugs depends largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation.[44] Credence is usually 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.[45] Failure to impute ill motive on the part of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation[46] will only sustain the conviction of the accused. | |||||
|
2013-04-10 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, the testimonies of SPO1 Chua and PO3 Jimenez were properly given significant probative weight by the trial court and, subsequently, by the Court of Appeals. In People v. Lapasaran,[19] we elaborated on the importance of the credible testimony of police officers in the prosecution of cases involving illegal drugs through the following: Moreover, this Court has often said that the prosecution of cases involving illegal drugs depends largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation. It is fundamental that the factual findings of the trial courts and those involving credibility of witnesses are accorded respect when no glaring errors, gross misappreciation of facts, or speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. The trial court is in a better position to decide the credibility of witnesses, having heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals. (Citation omitted.) | |||||