This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2016-01-18 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It was settled in People v. Hoble[38] that "possession of prohibited drugs, coupled with the fact that the possessor is not a user thereof, cannot indicate anything else but the intention to sell, distribute or deliver the prohibited stuff." In an earlier case, the Court considered three plastic bags of marijuana leaves and seeds as considerable quantity of drugs, such that possession of similar amount of drugs and the fact that the accused is not a user of prohibited drugs clearly demonstrates his intent to sell, distribute and deliver the same.[39] | |||||
|
2004-12-13 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Moreover, as the Ombudsman points out in his Comment, competitive public bidding is the primary mode of procurement, and it was thus necessary on the part of the petitioners to show why an alternative mode of procurement was resorted to. This they failed to demonstrate before the Ombudsman, and such failure can be taken along with the other contemporaneous circumstances to establish probable cause. It is incumbent upon a party who invokes coverage under the exception to a general rule to prove the fulfillment of the requisites thereof.[45] The rule is akin to the maxim in criminal law that whenever a person accused of the commission of a crime claims to be within the statutory exception, it is more logical and convenient that he should aver and prove the fact than that the prosecutor should anticipate such defense, and deny it.[46] | |||||