This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2004-01-15 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Time and again, this Court has ruled that a buy-bust operation is "a form of entrapment which has been accepted to be a valid means of arresting violators of the Dangerous Drugs Law."[10] The elements necessary for the prosecution of the illegal sale of drugs are, as follows: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor.[11] The straightforward testimonies of the principal witnesses for the prosecution clearly established these elements. The material portions of the poseur-buyer's testimony, which were amply corroborated by the other members of the buy-bust team, are quoted, as follows: Q: What else transpired there during the encounter in your office, in that evening of September 23, 1999? | |||||
|
2004-01-14 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| It is axiomatic that for testimonial evidence to be believed, it must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but must also be credible in itself such that common experience and observation of mankind lead to the inference of its probability under the circumstances. In criminal prosecution, the court is always guided by evidence that is tangible, verifiable and in harmony with the usual course of human experience and not by mere conjecture or speculation. Testimonies that do not adhere to this standard are necessarily accorded little weight or credence.[27] Besides, instigation, or the appellant's claim of a frame-up, is a defense that has been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor because the same can easily be concocted and is a common standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act.[28] Thus, in People vs. Bongalon,[29] the Court held:As we have earlier stated, the appellant's denial cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. We are not unaware of the perception that, in some instances, law enforcers resort to the practice of planting evidence to extract information or even to harass civilians. However, like alibi, frame-up is a defense that has been viewed by the Court with disfavor as it can easily be, concocted, hence, commonly used as a standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. We realize the disastrous consequences on the enforcement of law and order, not to mention the well-being of society, if the courts, solely on the basis of the policemen's alleged rotten reputation, accept in every instance this form of defense which can be so easily fabricated. It is precisely for this reason that the legal presumption that official duty has been regularly performed exists. | |||||
|
2003-08-05 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Anent the appellant's defense that he was framed-up, we are aware that in some instances, law enforcers resort to the practice of planting evidence to extract information or even to harass civilians.[26] However, like alibi, frame-up is viewed with disfavor for it is self-serving, can easily be fabricated and is a common standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act.[27] Clear and convincing evidence is required to prove the defense.[28] | |||||
|
2003-07-22 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| We are not convinced. It bears emphasis that frame-up as a defense has been invariably viewed with disfavor, for it can easily be concocted[24] but very difficult to substantiate.[25] That is why once the elements of a crime have been established, clear and convincing evidence[26] is required to prove this defense. Petitioner failed to discharge this burden in the instant case. | |||||