This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2014-04-07 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Clearly, all the elements of the crime were established by both the oral and object evidence presented in court. It is settled that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they enjoy the presumption of having performed their duties in a regular manner, unless, of course, there is evidence to the contrary suggesting ill-motive on their part or deviation from the regular performance of their duties.[27] Since no proof of such ill-motive on the part of the PDEA buy-bust team was adduced by appellant, the RTC and CA did not err in giving full faith and credence to the prosecution's account of the buy-bust operation. This Court has repeatedly stressed that a buy-bust operation (which is a form of entrapment) is a valid means of arresting violators of R.A. No. 9165.[28] | |||||