This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-09-01 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Against the testimony of the prosecution's eyewitness, the petitioner could only rely on the defense of denial. This defense, however, deserves scant consideration since "denial cannot prevail over the positive testimony of a witness. A mere denial, just like alibi, is a self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who [testified] on affirmative matters."[25] | |||||
|
2006-09-12 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Thus, conviction need not be predicated upon exclusive possession, and a showing of non-exclusive possession would not exonerate the accused. Such fact of possession may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence and any reasonable inference drawn therefrom. However, the prosecution must prove that the accused had knowledge of the existence and presence of the drug in the place under his control and dominion and the character of the drug. Since knowledge by the accused of the existence and character of the drugs in the place where he exercises dominion and control is an internal act, the same may be presumed from the fact that the dangerous drugs is in the house or place over which the accused has control or dominion, or within such premises in the absence of any satisfactory explanation. In the instant case, appellant failed to present any evidence to rebut the existence of animus possidendi over the illicit drugs and paraphernalia found in his residence. His claim that he was not aware that such illegal items were in his house is insufficient. We have time and again ruled that mere denial cannot prevail over the positive testimony of a witness. Mere denial, just like alibi, is a self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. As between a categorical testimony that rings of truth on one hand, and a bare denial on the other, the former is generally held to prevail.[35] Moreover, his defense of frame-up, as we said, is a common and standard line of defense which is invariably viewed with disfavor, it being capable of easy concoction and difficult to prove.[36] Considering that no clear and convincing evidence was presented to prove such allegation, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty,[37] as well as the principle that findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, especially when affirmed by the CA, are entitled to great respect and are accorded the highest consideration,[38] must prevail over the appellant's imputation of ill-motive on the part of the policemen who conducted the search. | |||||
|
2004-06-03 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, appellants failed to show any motive why PO1 Carpentero and PO2 Noceda would falsely impute a serious crime against them. Without proof of such motive, 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 their self-serving and uncorroborated claim of having been framed.[54] Like alibi, we view the defense of frame-up with disfavor as it can easily be concocted and it is one of the most hackneyed line of defense in dangerous drug cases.[55] For this claim to prosper, the defense must therefore adduce clear and convincing evidence.[56] In this aspect, appellants miserably failed. | |||||