This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2003-10-23 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| It is noteworthy that aside from appellant's testimony, not a shred of evidence was presented by the defense to prove his claim that he was framed-up. Not even Pinky who allegedly gave him the box of piaya containing marijuana was presented as a witness to confirm his story. We have ruled that clear and convincing evidence is required to prove the defense of "frame-up" because in the absence of proof of any intent on the part of the police authorities to falsely impute such crime against appellant, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty stands.[19] Also, allegations of frame-up are easily fabricated, making it the common and standard line of defense in prosecutions involving the Dangerous Drugs Law.[20] | |||||