This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-06-04 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The CA erred in applying the doctrine that the testimony of a lone prosecution witness, as long as it is credible and positive, can prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.[11] Such doctrine is unavailing in drugs cases wherein all who acquired custody over the confiscated items would necessarily have to testify in order to establish an unbroken chain. Additionally, worth noting is that PO3 Perez's testimony is not "virtually free from any form of inconsistency and contradictions as to besmirch it with doubt and question" contrary to the CA's findings.[12] In fact, it can be gleaned from the records that one of his key statements has been refuted by forensic chemist Ompoy herself. | |||||
|
2009-10-27 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| There was no need to present the poseur-buyer, since PO2 Sarmiento and PO3 Magsakay witnessed the whole transaction, where the marked money was exchanged for one sachet of shabu. The poseur-buyer was clearly visible from where PO2 Sarmiento and PO3 Magsakay were standing. In fact, the testimony of a lone prosecution witness, as long as it is positive and clear and not arising from an improper motive to impute a serious offense to the accused, deserves full credit. Non-presentation of the informer, where his testimony would be merely corroborative or cumulative, is not fatal to the prosecution's case.[24] | |||||