Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. DIOLO BARITA Y SACPA

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 194836 2011-06-15	PEOPLE v. ARNOLD CASTRO Y YANGA VELASCO JR., J.
A bare denial is an inherently weak defense [75] and has been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor for it can be easily concocted but difficult to prove, and is a common standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from violations of RA 9165. [76]
	GR No. 191198 2011-01-26	PEOPLE v. NENE QUIAMANLON Y MALOG VELASCO JR., J.
A bare denial is an inherently weak defense[44] and has been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor, for it can be easily concocted but difficult to prove, and is a common standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from violations of RA 9165.[45] And in the absence of any intent on the part of the police authorities to falsely impute such crime against the accused, the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty stands.[46]
	GR No. 185163 2011-01-17	PEOPLE v. CARLO MAGNO AURE Y ARNALDO VELASCO JR., J.
The sachet containing the dangerous drug was positively identified by MADAC operative Bilason during the trial as the very sachet with white crystalline substance sold and delivered to him by accused-appellants. Thus, accused-appellants' denial is self-serving and has little weight in law. A bare denial is an inherently weak defense,[41] and has been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor, for it can be easily concocted but difficult to prove, and is a common standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from violations of RA 9165.[42]
	GR No. 172605 2010-11-22	PEOPLE v. EVANGELINE LASCANO Y VELARDE 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]
	GR No. 186497 2009-09-17	PEOPLE v. HASANADDIN GUIARA Y BANSIL VELASCO JR., J.
Denial, as a defense, is an inherently weak one[28] and has been viewed by this Court with disdain, for it can easily be concocted and is a very common line of defense in prosecutions arising from violations of RA 9165.[29] Similarly, the defense of frame-up is also easily fabricated and commonly used in buy-bust cases.[30]
	GR NO. 171578 2007-08-08	HERMINIO BUENAVENTURA Y RECTO v. PEOPLE CARPIO MORALES, J.
On appellant's claim that the bricks of marijuana were planted, the Court is unconvinced. Frame-up is a defense that has been invariably viewed with disfavor, it being easily concocted and is a common standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.[21] Absent clear and convincing evidence of a frame-up, as in the present case, it must be rejected.[22]
	GR No. 148725 2003-07-31	PEOPLE v. LUIS TAMPIS YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
We cannot discern any improper motive, and no such motive was ever imputed to them by appellants, as to why the police would fabricate evidence and falsely implicate them in such a serious offense. From all the attendant circumstances, it appears that these police officers were simply carrying out their mission to curb drug abuse. The absence of evidence as to the improper motive actuating the principal witnesses for the prosecution strongly sustains the conclusion that none existed, and consequently their testimony is worthy of full faith and credit.[31] Moreover, the prosecution witnesses who are all law enforcers are presumed to have regularly performed their duties in the absence of proof to the contrary.[32]
	GR Nos. 131638-39 2001-03-26	PEOPLE v. LORETA MEDENILLA Y DORIA KAPUNAN, J.
Furthermore, in the case of People vs. Barita,[63] we held that there is no need to examine the entirety of the submitted specimen since the sample testing is representative of the whole specimen, we held:We are not persuaded by the claim of accused-appellants that in order for them to be convicted of selling 2,800 grams of marijuana, the whole specimen must be tested considering that Republic Act 7659 impose a penalty dependent on the amount or the quantity of drugs seized or taken. This court has ruled that a sample taken from one of the packages is logically presumed to be representative of the entire contents of the package unless proven otherwise by accused-appellant.[64] This ruling was reiterated in People vs. Zheng Bai Hui,[65] thus:
	GR No. 140919 2001-03-20	PEOPLE v. BUTCH BUCAO LEE GONZAGA-REYES, J.
It is well-established in this jurisdiction that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are accorded great respect unless the court a quo overlooked substantial facts and circumstances which, if considered, would materially affect the result of the case.[8] We find no reason to depart from this rule in the present case.