This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-07-06 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In drug related cases, what is relevant is the agreement and acts constituting the sale and delivery of the dangerous drug between the seller and buyer and not the existing familiarity between them. It is of common knowledge that pushers, especially small-time dealers, peddle prohibited drugs in the open like any articles of commerce.[22] Drug pushers do not confine their nefarious trade to known customers and complete strangers are accommodated provided they have the money to pay.[23] Thus, it is not improbable that Gaspar sold shabu to a complete stranger like PO1 Soreta who presented himself as a buyer. | |||||
|
2006-09-12 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Thus, conviction need not be predicated upon exclusive possession, and a showing of non-exclusive possession would not exonerate the accused. Such fact of possession may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence and any reasonable inference drawn therefrom. However, the prosecution must prove that the accused had knowledge of the existence and presence of the drug in the place under his control and dominion and the character of the drug. Since knowledge by the accused of the existence and character of the drugs in the place where he exercises dominion and control is an internal act, the same may be presumed from the fact that the dangerous drugs is in the house or place over which the accused has control or dominion, or within such premises in the absence of any satisfactory explanation. In the instant case, appellant failed to present any evidence to rebut the existence of animus possidendi over the illicit drugs and paraphernalia found in his residence. His claim that he was not aware that such illegal items were in his house is insufficient. We have time and again ruled that mere denial cannot prevail over the positive testimony of a witness. Mere denial, just like alibi, is a self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. As between a categorical testimony that rings of truth on one hand, and a bare denial on the other, the former is generally held to prevail.[35] Moreover, his defense of frame-up, as we said, is a common and standard line of defense which is invariably viewed with disfavor, it being capable of easy concoction and difficult to prove.[36] Considering that no clear and convincing evidence was presented to prove such allegation, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty,[37] as well as the principle that findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, especially when affirmed by the CA, are entitled to great respect and are accorded the highest consideration,[38] must prevail over the appellant's imputation of ill-motive on the part of the policemen who conducted the search. | |||||
|
2001-08-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Appellant Dick stresses that it was improbable for his companion, Chua, to put his trust on Azurin who was a complete stranger to Chua only two days before. As earlier discussed,[48] drug pushers do not confine their nefarious trade to known customers; complete strangers are accommodated provided they have the money to pay.[49] Moreover, why a dealer would trust a buyer, which is to say the motive behind a drug deal, is not an essential element of the drug-related offense. | |||||