This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2013-11-27 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| "It is equally settled that in cases involving violations of [R.A. No. 9165], credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary."[22] In this case, the RTC gave greater weight to the testimonies of the police officers who testified against Loks, a ruling which even the CA affirmed on appeal. Upon review, the Court has determined that the testimony of SPO1 Velasco, who was the poseur-buyer in the sale and thus armed with sufficient personal knowledge on the transaction, indeed established Lok's sale of the illegal drug and the validity of his arrest. | |||||
|
2013-01-09 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| It is material in illegal sale of dangerous drugs that the sale actually took place. What consummates the buy-bust transaction is the delivery of the drugs to the poseur-buyer and, in turn, the seller's receipt of the marked money.[7] While the parties may have agreed on the selling price of the shabu and delivery of payment was intended, these do not prove consummated sale. Receipt of the marked money, whether done before delivery of the drugs or after,[8] is required. | |||||
|
2012-12-10 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| It is equally settled that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary.[21] Appellant in this case failed to present evidence of ill motive on the part of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation to have implicated appellant. | |||||
|
2012-02-08 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Time and again, this Court has ruled that alibi and frame up are weak forms of defense usually resorted to in drug-related cases. In this regard, the Court is careful in appreciating them and giving them probable value because this type of defense is easy to concoct. This Court is, of course, not unaware of instances when our law enforcers would utilize means like planting evidence just to extract information, but then again the Court does realize the disastrous consequences on the enforcement of law and order, not to mention the well-being of society, if the courts, solely on the basis of the police officers' alleged rotten reputation, accept in every instance this form of defense which can be so easily fabricated. It is precisely for this reason that the legal presumption that official duty has been regularly performed exists. Bare denial cannot prevail over the positive identification by SPO4 Taruc of Arriola as the one who sold them the shabu.[8] For the defense position to prosper, the defense must adduce clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that government officials have performed their duties in a regular and proper manner.[9] This, unfortunately, Arriola failed to supply. What she made was a bare allegation of frame-up without presenting any credible witness that would support her claim. | |||||