This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2008-12-08 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Where the negative of an issue does not permit of direct proof, or where the facts are more immediately within the knowledge of the accused, the onus probandi rests upon him. Stated otherwise, it is not incumbent upon the prosecution to adduce positive evidence to support a negative averment the truth of which is fairly indicated by established circumstances and which, if untrue, could readily be disproved by the production of documents or other evidence within the defendant's knowledge or control. For example, where a charge is made that a defendant carried on a certain business without a license (as in the case at bar, where the accused is charged with the sale of a regulated drug without authority), the fact that he has a license is a matter which is peculiarity within his knowledge and he must establish that fact or suffer conviction.[14] (Emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2007-10-02 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| As to appellant's insistence that the shabu confiscated from her was not sufficiently established by the prosecution, the records will bear out that PO1 Valenzuela positively identified in court the four plastic sachets containing shabu which they bought from her. While he did not put any markings on the items, he witnessed his fellow member of the buy-bust team, PO1 Vergara, put his initials "RCV" on the sachets. Obviously, the identity of the corpus delicti has been duly preserved and established by the prosecution in this case contrary to appellant's protestation.[29] Besides, the integrity of the evidence is presumed to be preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with. The appellant in this case bears the burden to make some showing that the evidence was tampered or meddled with to overcome a presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers and a presumption that public officers properly discharge their duties.[30] | |||||
|
2004-02-16 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The general rule is that if a criminal charge is predicated on a negative allegation, or a negative averment is an essential element of the crime, the prosecution has the burden to prove the charge. However, this rule admits of exceptions. Where the negative of an issue does not permit of direct proof, or where the facts are more immediately within the knowledge of the accused, the onus probandi rests upon him. Stated otherwise, it is not incumbent upon the prosecution to adduce positive evidence to support a negative averment the truth of which is fairly indicated by established circumstances and which, if untrue, could readily be disproved by the production of documents or other evidence within the defendant's knowledge or control (italics in the original).[40] That appellant had neither license nor authority to sell or deliver regulated drugs could have been easily refuted by him by showing such authority before the court or the prosecutor's office. Indicative of his lack of authority or legitimacy to deal in drugs are the following established facts: (1) the sale of the "shabu" was initially set to take place in a restaurant, but the delivery of the drug to Mapoy took place in a hospital parking lot, not inside the hospital itself or its pharmacy, and (2) appellant dashed off, without by-your-leave upon seeing a group of people emerge from the hospital. These circumstances shifted the onus to appellant to prove his authority as legitimate drug seller or distributor. He could have disproved the allegation that he had no such authority by the mere presentation of a license or any document showing his authority to sell or distribute or deliver a regulated drug. He did no such thing at the trial or at any other time, for that matter. | |||||