This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2004-03-15 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| prohibited drug and identified appellant as the offender,[23] it is immaterial that no payment was made to appellant. As for the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of PO2 Lopez and SPO4 Jamisolamin, the same are minor and do not detract from the veracity and weight of the salient points thereof. | |||||
|
2004-02-16 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| There is nothing improbable about a drug dealer selling a huge amount of shabu to a stranger. Drug dealers are known to sell their wares even to strangers.[33] However, in this case, the poseur-buyer was with the NBI informer who introduced the former to appellant. Hence, it was not as if appellant was dealing with a stranger. He knew the informant beforehand. It was immaterial, in this instance, whether the appellant as vendor and Mapoy as the vendee had earlier known each other. | |||||
|
2003-09-26 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The man then directed Tudtud to open a carton box some two meters away.[42] According to Tudtud, the box was already there when he disembarked the bus.[43] Tudtud told the man the box was not his, but proceeded to open it out of fear after the man again pointed his revolver at him.[44] Tudtud discovered pieces of dried fish, underneath which was something wrapped in cellophane.[45] | |||||
|
2003-01-16 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Frameup, like alibi, is generally viewed with caution by this Court, because it is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove. Moreover, it is a common and standard line of defense in prosecutions of violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. In the case at bar, the allegation of appellants that they had been framed up cannot prevail over the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who, not having any reason to testify falsely against them, positively identified them as drug dealers.[16] We find these testimonies consistent, unequivocal and worthy of credence. | |||||