This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-06-26 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| In the case of Co v. Republic,[50] the Court emphasized the settled distinction between an executive and a judicial determination of probable cause, viz:[51] | |||||
|
2008-03-14 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Petitioner's allegation of frame-up and extortion is evidentiary in nature, and are matters for his defense. Evidentiary matters must be presented and heard during the trial.[36] They are best left for the trial court to evaluate and resolve after a full-blown trial on the merits.[37] In any case, it is well to note the Court's stance on such defense: "This Court is, of course, aware that in some cases, law enforcers resort to the practice of planting evidence in order to, inter alia, harass. But the defense of frame-up in drug cases requires strong and convincing evidence because of the presumption that the police officers performed their duties regularly and that they acted within the bounds of their authority. Besides, the defense of denial or frame-up, like alibi, is 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 the Dangerous Drugs Act."[38] | |||||