This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-06-29 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| This Court has invariably viewed with disfavor the defense of denial. Denial is inherently a weak defense and cannot prevail over the positive identification by the prosecution. Negative and self-serving denial deserves no weight in law when unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence. Such defense of denial, like frame-up, is a common and standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act.[37] | |||||
|
2014-03-31 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| "A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment whereby ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan."[21] In this regard, police authorities are given a wide discretion in the selection of effective means to apprehend drug dealers and the Court is hesitant to establish on a priori basis what detailed acts they might credibly undertake in their entrapment operations for there is no prescribed method on how the operation is to be conducted. As ruled in People v. Salazar,[22] a buy-bust operation deserves judicial sanction as long as it is carried out with due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards, such as in this case. | |||||