This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-02-22 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| Although petitioner is correct in his submission that public officers like policemen are accorded presumption of regularity in the performance of their official duties,[68] it is only a presumption; it may be overthrown by evidence to the contrary. The prosecution was able to rebut the presumption when it proved that the issuance to petitioner of the Memorandum Receipt was anything but regular. | |||||
|
2006-11-27 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Admittedly, it is settled that the signature of the accused in the "Receipt of Property Seized" is inadmissible in evidence if it was obtained without the assistance of counsel. The signature of the accused on such a receipt is a declaration against his interest and a tacit admission of the crime charged.[58] However, while it is true that appellant signed receipt of the property seized unassisted by counsel, this only renders inadmissible the receipt itself. | |||||