This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2011-08-31 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Testimonies of witnesses need only to corroborate each other on important and relevant details concerning the principal occurrence. "Besides, it is to be expected that the testimony of witnesses regarding the same incident may be inconsistent in some aspects because different persons may have different impressions or recollection of the same incident."[22] | |||||
|
2011-06-01 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Moreover, it may be noted that there is nothing on record to indicate that the prosecution witnesses harbored ill-motives against appellant. In several drug cases, this Court has consistently held that in the absence of proof to the contrary, law enforcers are presumed to have regularly performed their duty.[59] | |||||
|
2006-10-27 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The mere denial by petitioner of the crime charged and her bare claim of being the victim of a frame-up by de Vera and Gamboa cannot prevail over the positive and steadfast testimonies of the police officers. Their testimonies were corroborated by the inventory/receipt of property, stating that, indeed, 57 small heat-sealed plastic sachets containing methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) weighing 5.67 grams were found in a drawer in petitioner's bedroom. The police officers are presumed to have performed their duties in good faith, in accordance with law. Absent any clear and convincing evidence that such officers had ill or improper motive or were not performing their duties, their testimonies with respect to the surveillance operation, the implementation of search warrant, and the seizure of the regulated drug in the house of petitioner must be accorded full faith and credence.[67] Like alibi, the defense of denial and frame-up had been invariably viewed by the courts with disfavor. Denial is a negative of self-serving defense, while frame-up is as easily concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of R.A. No. 6425, as amended.[68] For the defense of frame-up to prosper, the evidence must be clear and convincing.[69] | |||||