This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2007-03-07 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| It is appellants' posture that the immediate sale to SPO4 Jamisolamin of an enormous amount of marijuana hashish on the evening of July 8, 1997, even as they met Jamisolamin only that evening, is not in conformity with knowledge, nor consistent with the experience of mankind, hence incredible and unworthy of belief.[6] On this score, they invoke the ruling in People v. Pagaura,[7]where the Court stated inter alia:The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses not only appear to be improbable but also incredible. We find it rather foolish that one who peddles illegal drugs would boldly and unashamedly present his wares to total strangers, lest he be caught in flagrante when, as has been demonstrated in similar cases, such nefarious deals are carried on with utmost secrecy or whispers to avoid detection. Pagaura, however, stems from an entirely different factual milieu. There, the accused approached the police-witnesses who were then in civilian clothes requesting the latter's assistance in securing a boat ticket at the wharf. Pagaura allegedly insisted on their help since he was afraid of the inspection due to his black bag containing a kilo of marijuana. To convince the men, Pagaura allegedly opened his bag right then and there to show them the marijuana. | |||||
|
2003-08-05 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Anent the appellant's defense that he was framed-up, we are aware that in some instances, law enforcers resort to the practice of planting evidence to extract information or even to harass civilians.[26] However, like alibi, frame-up is viewed with disfavor for it is self-serving, can easily be fabricated and is a common standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act.[27] Clear and convincing evidence is required to prove the defense.[28] | |||||
|
2003-04-24 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| While this Court commends the efforts of law enforcement agencies who are engaged in the difficult and dangerous task of apprehending and prosecuting drug-traffickers, we must reiterate that courts must be extra vigilant in trying drug cases lest innocent persons are made to suffer death or other severe penalties for drug offenses.[51] | |||||
|
2001-10-10 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Neither can the Court use as basis for affirming Jun's conviction the "presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions." The reason is two-fold. First, the presumption is precisely just that - a mere presumption.[55] Once it is challenged by evidence, as in this case, SPO1 Vizcarra's testimony cannot be regarded as binding truth. Second, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions cannot preponderate over the presumption of innocence that prevails if not overthrown by proof beyond reasonable doubt.[56] | |||||