This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2012-03-12 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, the CA is correct in giving credence to the testimonies of the police officers as regards the timely submission of the subject illegal drugs since they are presumed to have regularly performed their duties, unless there is evidence suggesting ill-motive on the part of the police officers.[34] In this case, the accused-appellants failed to contradict the presumption. What goes against the accused-appellants is the fact that they have not offered any evidence of ill-motive against the police officers. Emily even admitted that she did not know PO1 Area, the poseur-buyer.[35] Considering that there was no existing relationship between the police officers and the accused-appellants, the former could not be accused of improper motive to falsely testify against the accused-appellants. In People v. Dumangay,[36] we upheld the findings of the lower court on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties because there was no proof of ill-motive. Therein, the accused-appellant's self-serving and uncorroborated defenses did not prevail over the trial court's findings on the credibility of witnesses. The same may be said in the present case. | |||||