This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-08-15 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Herein appellant was caught red-handed in the act of committing the offenses for which he was charged. He made the sale in the presence of the police operatives, the poseur-buyer and the informant. When he fled, he carried then threw the envelope containing the regulated drugs inside the bedroom in full view of PO1 Libuton, the pursuing arresting officer. There was therefore no need for a warrant to arrest and search the person of appellant.[16] | |||||
|
2005-10-11 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Petitioners make much ado about the absence of a written agreement to prove their availment of respondent's irrigation services. They enthuse that absent any agreement and sans proof that they are beneficiaries of the irrigation facility, no payment can be exacted from them. On record is a demand letter dated 11 January 1994 of Romeo R. Anonuevo, Provincial Irrigation Officer of the National Irrigation Administration of Region IV, addressed to petitioner Olivia Palileo thru a certain Arsenio Bueta, whom petitioners admit as one of the tillers of the land. Likewise on record are the respective statements of account for petitioners as of 31 August 1996, also signed by the Provincial Irrigation Officer of respondent. These documents would show the irrigation consumption of petitioners' lots as well as petitioners' outstanding balance in irrigation fees. We accord weight to these documents signed by the Provincial Irrigation Officer applying the presumption that official acts or functions were regularly done. In the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, the presumption of regularity of official acts by government officials must necessarily prevail.[34] | |||||
|
2004-06-03 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, appellants failed to show any motive why PO1 Carpentero and PO2 Noceda would falsely impute a serious crime against them. Without proof of such motive, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses shall prevail over their self-serving and uncorroborated claim of having been framed.[54] Like alibi, we view the defense of frame-up with disfavor as it can easily be concocted and it is one of the most hackneyed line of defense in dangerous drug cases.[55] For this claim to prosper, the defense must therefore adduce clear and convincing evidence.[56] In this aspect, appellants miserably failed. | |||||