This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-10-19 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Incidentally, the dissent's invocation of the adverse presumption of suppression of evidence[43] is erroneous, since it does not arise when the evidence is at the disposal of both parties. [44] In the present case, the required proofs of commercial transactions the dissent cites are public documents which are at the disposal of both parties; they are not solely under the custody of Mitra and can be easily obtained from the municipal offices of Aborlan had the private respondents been minded to do so. The bottom line is that no such evidence was ever presented in this case, and none can and should be considered at this point. | |||||
|
2007-03-09 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| As People v. Navaja[48] holds, whether there lived another person with the same name as the accused in the area where the buy-bust operation was conducted is immaterial, the identity of the therein accused as the person who sold the marijuana to the poseur-buyers having been established,[49] as in the present case. | |||||