This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-06-08 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The defense of frame-up in drug cases requires strong and convincing evidence because of the presumption that the law enforcement agencies acted in the regular performance of their official duties.[29] Nonetheless, such a defense may be given credence when there is sufficient evidence or proof making it to be very plausible or true. We are of the view that accused-appellant's defenses of denial and frame-up are credible given the circumstances of the case. Indeed, jurisprudence has established that the defense of denial assumes significance only when the prosecution's evidence is such that it does not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt,[30] as in the instant case. At the very least, there is reasonable doubt that there was a buy-bust operation conducted and that accused-appellant sold the seized shabu. After all, a criminal conviction rests on the strength of the evidence of the prosecution and not on the weakness of the defense.[31] | |||||
|
2011-02-09 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| As regards appellant's civil liability, we affirm the award of moral damages and civil indemnity, which are automatically granted without need of proof or pleading,[27] each in the sum of P75,000. However, we increase the award of exemplary damages from P25,000 to P30,000 consistent with prevailing jurisprudence.[28] | |||||