This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-11-22 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Frame-up is a defense that has been invariably viewed with disfavor for it can easily be concocted but difficult to prove and is a common and standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act.[27] We find no convincing evidence presented by appellant to prove such defense. Appellant's claim that her arrest was to make Litong Putol come out is unbelievable considering that she admitted not knowing where Putol resides;[28] that Putol was not a frequent visitor in their house or had met with him anywhere,[29] and that she had no communications with him.[30] Thus, it would be futile for the police to arrest appellant just to make Putol come out when appellant herself admitted that she had no communication with Putol long before her arrest. Hence, in the absence of proof of motive of the police officers to falsely impute such serious crimes against appellant, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses shall prevail over appellant's claim of having been framed.[31] | |||||
|
2010-04-23 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In full agreement with the courts a quo, we likewise fail to appreciate any exempting or justifying circumstance in appellants' favor anchored as it were on their mere testimonies. This Court will not disturb the judgment of the trial court in assessing the credibility of witnesses, unless there appears in the records some facts or circumstances of weight and influence which have been overlooked or the significance of which has been misinterpreted by the trial court.[30] In the instant case, we find nothing which have been overlooked by the courts a quo which, if considered, would alter the outcome in so far as appellants are concerned. | |||||