This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-08-25 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Absent any proof of motive to falsely accuse petitioner of such a grave offense, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and the findings of the trial court with respect to the credibility of witnesses prevail over that of petitioner.[25] | |||||
|
2010-02-17 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| For his part, petitioner could not offer any viable defense except to deny that there was a buy-bust operation and to claim that he was, instead, a victim of frame-up and extortion by the police officers. However, like alibi, the defenses of denial and frame-up are viewed by the Court with disfavor, as these can easily be concocted and are commonly used as standard lines of defense in most prosecutions arising from illegal sale of drugs.[24] Moreover, for the claim of frame-up to prosper, the defense must present clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that the arresting policemen performed their duties in a regular and proper manner.[25] This, petitioner failed to do. | |||||
|
2009-09-17 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Generally, non-compliance with Sec. 21 will not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from the accused inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as they would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[10] As we shall later discuss, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved. We, thus, cannot sustain Capco's claim of inadmissibility of the drug. | |||||