This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2001-05-31 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| In upholding the prosecution and giving credence to the testimony of police officer Jerito A. Adigue, the trial court relied on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the police officers.[41] This is a flagrant error because his testimony is directly contradictory to the official records of the Firearms and Explosives Division, PNP, which must prevail. Morever, the presumption of regularity can not prevail over the Constitutional presumption of innocence.[42] Right from the start, P/Sr. Insp. Jerito A. Adigue was aware that petitioner possessed a valid license for the caliber .45 Colt pistol in question. Despite this fact, P/Sr. Insp. Adigue proceeded to detain petitioner and charged him with illegal possession of firearms. We quote pertinent portions of the testimony of petitioner: "Q: What else did Adigue tell you after showing to him the license of your cal. .45 pistol and the alleged cal. .22 found in a drawer in your kitchen? | |||||