This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2012-04-11 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In contrast, accused-appellant only proffered the defenses of denial and frame-up, that the dangerous drugs and paraphernalia were planted by the police officers. However, other than accused-appellant's bare allegations, there is no other evidence on record to corroborate his version of the events that transpired at his house on July 13, 2000. "[D]enial as a rule is a weak form of defense, particularly when it is not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence. The defense of denial or frame-up, like alibi, has been invariably viewed by the courts with disfavor for it can just as easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act."[34] | |||||
|
2011-11-23 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Credence was properly accorded to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, who are law enforcers. When police officers have no motive to testify falsely against the accused, courts are inclined to uphold this presumption. In this case, no evidence has been presented to suggest any improper motive on the part of the police enforcers in arresting accused-appellant. We accord great respect to the findings of the trial court on the matter of credibility of the witnesses in the absence of any palpable error or arbitrariness in its findings.[18] | |||||
|
2003-10-23 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| This is not the first time we recognize a search conducted pursuant to routine airport security procedure as an exception to the proscription against warrantless searches. In People vs. Canton,[6] and People vs. Johnson,[7] we validated the search conducted on the departing passengers and the consequent seizure of the shabu found in their persons, thus:"Persons may lose the protection of the search and seizure clause by exposure of their persons or property to the public in a manner reflecting a lack of subjective expectation of privacy, which expectation society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. Such recognition is implicit in airport security procedures. With increased concern over airplane hijacking and terrorism has come increased security at the nation's airports. Passengers attempting to board an aircraft routinely pass through metal detectors; their carry-on baggage as well as checked luggage are routinely subjected to x-ray scans. Should these procedures suggest the presence of suspicious objects, physical searches are conducted to determine what the objects are. There is little question that such searches are reasonable, given their minimal intrusiveness, the gravity of the safety interests involved, and the reduced privacy expectations associated with airline travel. Indeed, travelers are often notified through airport public address systems, signs and notices in their airline tickets that they are subject to search and, if any prohibited materials or substances are found, such would be subject to seizure. These announcements place passengers on notice that ordinary constitutional protections against warrantless searches and seizures do not apply to routine airport procedures." (Underscoring ours) | |||||
|
2002-01-23 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| It is a settled rule that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is 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.[41] | |||||
|
2001-07-26 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The defense of frame-up or denial, like alibi, has invariably been viewed by the courts with disfavor for it can just as easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.[4] For such a defense to prosper, the evidence must be clear and convincing.[5] | |||||
|
2001-02-19 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| [D]enial is a weak form of defense, particularly when it is not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence. The defense of denial or frame-up, like alibi, has been invariably viewed by the courts with disfavor for it can just as easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.[44] Accused-appellant claims that he was framed and that the arresting officers' motive in framing him is to extort P1 million from him.[45] This defense requires strong and convincing evidence because of the presumption that the law enforcement agents acted in the regular performance of their official duties.[46] Appellant failed to rebut this presumption. He did not even attempt to prove that the airport and police officers who conducted the search and recovered the drugs had motives other than to enforce the law and stem the menace of drug addiction and trafficking which continues to plague our society. It must be stressed here that the claim of frame-up can be easily made and the accused in drug cases almost always take refuge in such a defense.[47] | |||||