This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-06-26 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The last argument of accused-appellant, that is, that "[i]t matters not that the defense is weak, what matters is that the prosecution prove the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt,"[30] must also fail. First, the evidence for the prosecution was, in fact, sufficient to establish the guilt of accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Second, the defense of denial, when not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence as in this case, is negative and self-serving, and cannot prevail over the affirmative statements of a credible witness.[31] | |||||
|
2012-07-04 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| All considered, the credible testimonies of the arresting officers and their positive identification of the appellants should prevail over the bare denial of the defense[31] nor the conflicting and incomplete testimonies of their witnesses. "Denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative and self-serving evidence which deserves no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value over the testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters."[32] | |||||
|
2006-09-27 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| We therefore stress that the "objective" test in buy-bust operations demands that the details of the purported transaction must be clearly and adequately shown. This must start from the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the consideration until the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of the sale. The manner by which the initial contact was made, whether or not through an informant, the offer to purchase the drug, the payment of the "buy-bust" money, and the delivery of the illegal drug, whether to the informant alone or the police officer, must be the subject of strict scrutiny by courts to insure that law abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit an offense. Criminals must be caught but not at all cost. At the same time, however, examining the conduct of the police should not disable courts into ignoring the accused's predisposition to commit the crime. If there is overwhelming evidence of habitual delinquency, recidivism or plain criminal proclivity, then this must also be considered. Courts should look at all factors to determine the predisposition of an accused to commit an offense in so far as they are relevant to determine the validity of the defense of inducement. Appellant would advance an extra-constitutional exclusionary regime against such operation. The proferred course of conduct is obviously unacceptable. As correctly pointed out by the People in its brief before the CA, the price that must have to be paid for the adoption of appellant's proposition is the unnecessary and dangerous exposure of government confidential agents and informants in its crusade to ferret out the menace and proliferation of drug abuse. Living in the fringes of the underworld, these police "assets" may well be unwilling to expose themselves to possible liquidation attempts by drug lords and their allies should their identities be revealed much too often by repeated appearances in court to testify against drug dealers, pushers or users. Against such needless hamperings of the government's battle against illegal drugs, appellant has failed to demonstrate a clear showing of a constitutional right that should justify the novel extraordinary restriction he proposes.[17] A "buy-bust" operation has proven itself to be an effective mode of apprehending drug pushers. This is not to say, however, that an end can justify the means. If carried out with due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards, a "buy-bust" operation deserves judicial sanction.[18] The delivery of the prohibited drugs to the disguised poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping police officers and the drug dealers.[19] | |||||