This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-02-09 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| In cases involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, "credence should be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses, especially when they are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary. Moreover, in the absence of proof of motive to falsely impute such a serious crime against the appellant, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, as well as the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, shall prevail over [appellant's] self-serving and uncorroborated denial."[10] Appellant therefore had the burden to overcome the presumption that the police officers regularly and properly discharged their duties[11] which she failed to do. Against the evidence of the prosecution, her defenses of alibi, denial and frame-up crumble. Aside from being weak and uncorroborated, such defenses are viewed with disfavor since they can easily be concocted and are common and standard ploy in prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.[12] | |||||
|
2015-01-21 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Indeed, this Court accords the highest degree of respect to the findings of the lower court as to appellants' guilt of the offense charged against them, especially when such findings are adequately supported by documentary as well as testimonial evidence. It is a settled policy of this Court, founded on reason and experience, to sustain the findings of fact of the trial court in criminal cases, on the rational assumption that it is in a better position to assess the evidence before it, having had the opportunity to make an honest determination of the witnesses' deportment during the trial.[55] | |||||
|
2014-11-17 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Such an argument is unworthy of credence since objections to a warrant of arrest or the procedure by which the court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be manifested prior to entering his plea.[20] Otherwise, the objection is deemed waived.[21] Moreover, jurisprudence dictates that "the illegal arrest of an accused is not sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient complaint after a trial free from error. It will not even negate the validity of the conviction of the accused."[22] | |||||