This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2013-02-25 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| This Court, however, has previously stressed that mere association with the principals by direct participation, without more, does not suffice.[132] Relationship, association and companionship do not prove conspiracy.[133] Salapuddin's complicity to the crime, if this be the case, cannot be anchored on his relationship, if any, with the arrested persons or his ownership of the place where they allegedly stayed while in Manila. | |||||
|
2010-11-24 |
VELASCO JR., 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 way may be presumed from the fact that the dangerous drug 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.[22] | |||||
|
2009-04-16 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Appellant's assertion that he was framed-up has no merit. In almost every case involving a buy-bust operation, the accused puts up the defense of frame-up. This court has repeatedly emphasized that the defense of "frame-up" is viewed with disfavor,[35] since the defense is easily concocted and is a common ploy of the accused.[36] Therefore, clear and convincing evidence of the frame-up must be shown for such a defense to be given merit.[37] | |||||
|
2008-12-18 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Finally, petitioner speaks of conspiracy among the respondents and those indicted. However, as found by the Ombudsman, such conspiracy alleged in the complaint was not supported by ample evidence. At best, the evidence adduced was not clear as to respondents' participation in the acts in question. Actori incumbit onus probandi- the burden of proof rests with the plaintiff or the prosecution. The inherent weakness of complainant's case is not a ground for the Ombudsman to conduct preliminary investigation.[32] For it is fundamental that conspiracy cannot be presumed. Conspiracy must be proved by direct evidence or by proof of the overt acts of the accused, before, during and after the commission of the crime charged indicative of a common design.[33] This, the petitioner sadly failed to establish. | |||||
|
2006-09-12 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Any such above government official, employee or officer who is found guilty of "planting" any dangerous drugs punished in Sections 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 13 of Article II and Sections 14, 14-A, 15 and 16 of Article III of this Act in the person or in the immediate vicinity of another as evidence to implicate the latter, shall suffer the same penalty as therein provided. The incantation of frame-up is nothing new. It is a common and standard line of defense in most prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law. While such defense cannot and should not always be considered as contrived, nonetheless, it is generally rejected for it can easily be concocted but is difficult to prove. Police officers are, after all, presumed to have acted regularly in the performance of their official functions, in the absence of clear and convincing proof to the contrary, or that they are motivated by ill-will.[29] | |||||