This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-08-24 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In Macabare's case, the defense was not able to present evidence refuting the showing of animus possidendi over the shabu found in his kubol. Macabare's insistence that someone else owned the shabu is unpersuasive and uncorroborated. It is a mere denial which by itself is insufficient to overcome this presumption.[12] The presumption of ownership, thus, lies against Macabare. Moreover, it is well-established that the defense of alibi or denial, in the absence of convincing evidence, is invariably viewed with disfavor by the courts for it can be easily concocted, especially in cases involving the Dangerous Drugs Act.[13] | |||||
|
2007-08-08 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Appellant did not even ascribe any motive for the possible fabrication of charges against him by the police whom he admittedly met for the first time at the time of his arrest.[40] The absence of any improper motive strongly tends to sustain the conclusion that none existed to falsely charge appellant. The presumption that the police officers performed their duties regularly and that they acted within the bounds of their authority[41] is thus worthy of full faith and credit. | |||||