This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2012-11-14 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The defense of denial, like alibi, has been viewed by the court with disfavor for it can just as easily be concocted. Denial in drug cases requires strong and convincing evidence because of the presumption that the law enforcement agencies acted in the regular performance of their official duties. Bare denials of appellants cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of the three police officers. Moreover, there is no evidence of any improper motive on the part of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation to falsely testify against appellants.[28] | |||||
|
2011-01-26 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Denial or frame-up, like alibi, has been viewed with disfavor for it can just as easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of Dangerous Drugs Act. The defense of frame-up or denial in drug cases requires strong and convincing evidence because of the presumption that the law enforcement agencies acted in the regular performance of their official duties. Bare denial of appellant cannot prevail over the positive testimony of the prosecution witness.[60] | |||||
|
2010-10-18 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Against the positive testimony of PO2 Jimenez, the defense of accused-appellants that they were victims of a frame-up must fail. A defense of denial which is unsupported and unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence becomes negative and self-serving, deserving no weight in law, and cannot be given greater evidentiary value over convincing, straightforward, and probable testimony on affirmative matters.[16] Accused-appellants failed to present corroborating evidence to support their alibi. It must be remembered that accused-appellants' defenses of frame-up and denial require strong and convincing evidence to support them, for the incantation of such defense is nothing new to the Court.[17] The inability of accused-appellants to predicate their defense on anything other than their words alone ultimately condemns them to prison, especially in light of the prosecution's evidence and witnesses, which accused-appellants had been incapable of impeaching.[18] The trial court held that PO2 Jimenez's testimony was more credible than the couple's. The rule is that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect, because trial courts have the advantage of observing the demeanor of the witnesses as they testify.[19] Furthermore, accused-appellants cannot point to any ill motive for PO2 Jimenez to testify falsely. An affirmative testimony coming from credible witnesses without motive to perjure is far stronger than a negative testimony.[20] | |||||
|
2009-10-16 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Appellant imputes ill motive on the part of the buy-bust team by asseverating that he had a previous quarrel with PO3 Lubos and that he knows some members of the buy-bust team. Withal, this allegation is uncorroborated and unsubstantiated. Hence, the imputation of improper motive should be negated. When the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation have no motive to testify against the accused, the courts shall uphold the presumption that they have performed their duties regularly.[38] | |||||
|
2009-06-18 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Appellants admitted that they did not know PO2 Dimacali, PO2 Carandang and the rest of the back-up team prior to their arrest and could not state any reason why they were arrested and charged with selling shabu, hence negating any improper motive on the part of the arresting officers.[33] When the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation have no ill motive to testify against the accused, the courts shall uphold the presumption that they have performed their duties regularly.[34] Further, appellants have not filed a single complaint for frame-up or extortion against the arresting officers. This inaction clearly betrays appellants' claim of frame-up. | |||||
|
2009-02-10 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| First of all, we reiterate the fundamental rule that findings of the trial courts, which are factual in nature and which involve the credibility of witnesses, are accorded respect when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts or speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings.[27] This rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals as in the case at bar.[28] | |||||
|
2007-07-30 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The elements necessary to establish a case for illegal sale of shabu are: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[18] | |||||
|
2007-07-06 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The trial court placed great weight on the testimonies of these police officers and accorded them the presumption of regularity in the performance of their functions.[37] The prosecution of drug cases largely depends on the credibility of the police officers. The factual findings of the trial court especially those which revolve on matters of credibility of witnesses deserve to be respected when no glaring errors bordering on a gross misapprehension of the facts or no speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gleaned from such findings. The evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses' deportment, demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grilling examination.[38] In this case, the RTC was upheld by the Court of Appeals. Petitioner has not convinced this Court of the existence of any of the recognized exceptions[39] to the conclusiveness of the findings of fact of the trial and appellate courts. | |||||