This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2014-09-03 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Appellant's contention is belied by the testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution. It bears to stress that the defense of denial or frame-up, like alibi, has been invariably viewed with disfavor by this Court for it can easily be concocted and is a common defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.[35] They are self-serving evidence, and unless substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, cannot be given weight over the positive assertions of credible witnesses.[36] | |||||
|
2013-06-19 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In the presentation of evidence, the prosecution or the defense has the discretion on what to present as evidence or choose whom it wishes to present as witnesses in order to establish its cause of action. For example, the prosecution's failure to present the chief investigator in court is not fatal to its cause.[74] | |||||
|
2013-03-06 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Appellant's defenses hinge primarily on denial and frame-up. He claims that while denial, like alibi, is generally considered a weak defense, it is not always false and bereft of merit where the evidence for the prosecution is even weaker. This is true but not in all cases and certainly not in this case. It bears to stress that "the defense of denial or frame-up, like alibi, has been invariably viewed with disfavor [by this Court] for it can easily be concocted and is a common defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act."[24] Here, the lower courts properly rejected this defense not only because the prosecution's evidence against appellant is so overwhelming but also because he miserably failed to substantiate such defense with clear and convincing evidence. | |||||
|
2012-04-25 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| Minor deviations from the procedures under R.A. 9165 would not automatically exonerate an accused from the crimes of which he or she was convicted.[38] This is especially true when the lapses in procedure were "recognized and explained in terms of [] justifiable grounds."[39] There must also be a showing "that the police officers intended to comply with the procedure but were thwarted by some justifiable consideration/reason."[40] However, when there is gross disregard of the procedural safeguards prescribed in the substantive law (R.A. 9165), serious uncertainty is generated about the identity of the seized items that the prosecution presented in evidence.[41] This uncertainty cannot be remedied by simply invoking the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties, for a gross, systematic, or deliberate disregard of the procedural safeguards effectively produces an irregularity in the performance of official duties.[42] As a result, the prosecution is deemed to have failed to fully establish the elements of the crimes charged, creating reasonable doubt on the criminal liability of the accused.[43] | |||||