This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-01-30 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Appellants' defense of alibi cannot stand in the face of proof beyond reasonable doubt of the illegal sale and possession of prohibited drugs. The defense of alibi is viewed with disfavor for it can easily be concocted and is a common defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.[11] This case is no exception. | |||||
|
2007-10-02 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, appellant failed to present any plausible reason or ill motive on the part of the arresting officers to falsely impute to her such a serious and unfounded charge.[26] From her testimony, it can easily be discerned that she did not know any one of the members of the buy-bust team who arrested her. She even referred to them as Mazo's "companions." This fact supports the Court of Appeals' holding that Then too, the rule is settled that the testimony of a law enforcer carries with it the presumption of regularity in the performance of his official functions. When a police officer has no motive for testifying falsely against the accused, courts are inclined to uphold the presumption of regularity in the performance of his duty. Here, no evidence whatsoever was presented which would suggest any improper motive on the part of PO1 Valenzuela. We must accord great respect to and treat with finality the findings of the trial court on the matter of his credibility.[27] We likewise find no merit in appellant's contention that the buy-bust operation was tainted with irregularity by the belated recording of the buy-bust money in the records of the police. It is settled that the recording of marked money used in a buy-bust operation is not one of the elements for the prosecution of sale of illegal drugs. The recording or non-recording thereof in an official record will not necessarily lead to an acquittal as long as the sale of the prohibited drug is adequately proven.[28] | |||||
|
2007-07-27 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In order to successfully prove the existence of the illegal sale of regulated or prohibited drugs, the prosecution must be able to establish the following elements of the crime: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[26] | |||||