This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-06-15 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Generally, in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, who are police officers, are given credence for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary. [19] In the present case, the testimonies of the arresting officers as to what happened during the day the buy-bust was conducted were candid and expressed in a straightforward manner; thus, in the absence of any improper motive, said statements are given full faith and credit. [20] | |||||
|
2010-08-08 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Contrary to the claim of accused, the Court finds no material inconsistency or contradiction in the testimonies of PO1 Mapula and PO2 Laro. The alleged inconsistencies or contradictions cited by petitioner are not cogent enough to overturn her conviction. The testimonies of witnesses only need to corroborate one another on material details surrounding the actual commission of the crime.[23] This Court has repeatedly held that a few discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses referring to minor details and not actually touching upon the central fact of the crime do not impair their credibility.[24] | |||||
|
2009-12-23 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| It is also argued as impossible to believe that even if there was already a deal between the informant and accused-appellants, it was the apprehending police officer who acted as the buyer and that he requested to see the shabu first before showing the money. These claims by Talib are similarly undeserving of consideration. First, there is no uniform method by which drug pushers and their buyers operate. Second, the choice of effective ways to apprehend drug dealers is within the ambit of police authority. Police officers have the expertise to determine which specific approaches are necessary to enforce their entrapment operations.[24] Third, as long as they enjoy credibility as witnesses, the police officers' account of how the buy-bust operation transpired is entitled to full faith and credit. [25] Lastly, these arguments are merely incidental and do not affect the elements of the crime which have been, in the instant case, sufficiently established. | |||||