This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2011-01-10 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Moreover, present in the instant case are all the elements of illegal possession of drugs: (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 possesses the said drug. [12] Accused-appellants were positively identified in court as the individuals caught loading and possessing illegal drugs. They were found to be in possession of prohibited drugs without proof that they were duly authorized by law to possess them. Having been caught in flagrante delicto, there is, therefore, a prima facie evidence of animus possidendi on the part of accused-appellants. [13] There is, thus, no merit to the argument of the defense that a warrant was needed to arrest accused-appellants. | |||||
|
2008-07-09 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In a prosecution for violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, usually a case becomes a contest of credibility between the accused and the police, the witnesses and their testimonies. Generally this Court relies upon the assessment by the trial court, which had the distinct advantage of observing the conduct or demeanor of the witnesses while they were testifying.[25] The factual findings by the trial court are accorded respect, even finality, absent any showing that certain facts of weight and substance bearing on the elements of the crime have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied.[26] We find no justifiable reason to deviate from this rule in the case before us.[27] | |||||
|
2004-03-29 |
PUNO, 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 a 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.[22] | |||||
|
2003-10-23 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| It is noteworthy that aside from appellant's testimony, not a shred of evidence was presented by the defense to prove his claim that he was framed-up. Not even Pinky who allegedly gave him the box of piaya containing marijuana was presented as a witness to confirm his story. We have ruled that clear and convincing evidence is required to prove the defense of "frame-up" because in the absence of proof of any intent on the part of the police authorities to falsely impute such crime against appellant, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty stands.[19] Also, allegations of frame-up are easily fabricated, making it the common and standard line of defense in prosecutions involving the Dangerous Drugs Law.[20] | |||||
|
2003-04-24 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conduct the "buy-bust" operation.[50] Hence, in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Law, appellate courts tend to heavily rely upon the trial court in assessing the credibility of witnesses, as it had the unique opportunity, denied to the appellate courts, to observe the witnesses and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under direct and cross-examination.[51] Hence, its factual findings are accorded great respect, even finality, absent any showing that certain facts of weight and substance bearing on the elements of the crime have been overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied.[52] | |||||
|
2003-02-14 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| The presumption of regularity in the performance of duty is, in this case, uncontradicted by evidence to the contrary and therefore stands, [34] aside from the fact that the prosecution's evidence fully shows and confirms such regularity. | |||||