This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2014-01-15 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| On the other hand, the elements of illegal possession of drugs are: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.[58] | |||||
|
2008-04-30 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Although the Court has held that frame-up is inherently one of the weakest defenses,[61] as it is both easily concocted and difficult to prove,[62] in the present case, the lower courts seriously erred in ignoring the weakness of the prosecution's evidence and its failure to prove the guilt of petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. The rule requiring a claim of frame-up to be supported by clear and convincing evidence[63] was never intended to shift to the accused the burden of proof in a criminal case. As the Court held in People of the Philippines v. Ambih:[64] | |||||
|
2007-07-27 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| It must be remembered that appellant's defense of frame-up and denial requires strong and convincing evidence to support them for the incantation of such defense is nothing new to the Court.[19] As it were, appellant only offered an unsubstantiated tale that the police officers asked, in police jargon, a "palit-ulo"[20] and that he was a victim of a frame-up. His allegations that the police officers likewise beat him up in their attempt to extract information from him is belied by the absence of any proof to that effect. And without so much of an explanation, appellant did not even present as witness his companion Socrates Manalad, alias "Sote," who was allegedly with him when the apprehension was effected. If the police officers indeed tried to extort information from appellant by beating him up, appellant could have filed the proper charges against the erring police officers. The fact that no administrative or criminal charges were filed lends cogency to the conclusion that the alleged frame-up was merely concocted as a defense ploy. | |||||
|
2004-02-17 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Appellant contends that the arresting officers merely framed him up. The Court is aware that in drug-related cases, frame-up and "hulidap" are common and standard line of defenses. However, like alibi, frame-up is easy to concoct but difficult to prove. For this defense to prosper, the evidence adduced must be clear and convincing.[11] In this case, appellant has gravely failed to substantiate his allegations of a frame-up. Appellant's claim that the police merely planted the shabu deserves scant consideration. It is incredible that the police officers would plant a very large quantity of shabu when a few sticks of marijuana could have been used, with great ease, to frame-up appellant. Records also show that appellant and the police officers are strangers to each other. Nothing in the records explains why the prosecution witnesses would fabricate their testimonies and implicate appellant in such a serious crime.[12] | |||||
|
2003-01-20 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In a prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following facts must be proven with moral certainty: (1) that the accused is in possession of the object identified as prohibited or regulated drug; (2) that such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) that the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.[95] | |||||