This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2015-01-21 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| This Court has consistently noted that denial or frame up is a standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Law. This defense has been invariably viewed with disfavor for it can easily be concocted. In order to prosper, the defense of denial and frame-up must be proved with strong and convincing evidence.[42] Without proof of any intent on the part of the police officers to falsely impute to appellants the commission of a crime, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and the principle that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect, deserve to prevail over the bare denials and self-serving claims of frame up by appellants.[43] | |||||
|
2014-08-06 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Again, findings of fact of the trial court as to the credibility of witnesses are accorded great weight and respect when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts, and speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. The rationale behind this rule is that the trial court is in a better position to decide the credibility of witnesses, having heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during trial. This rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the CA.[29] This Court does not find any convincing reason to depart from the ruling of the trial court, which was affirmed by the appellate court. Thus, We affirm the assailed Decision of the appellate court and uphold the conviction of both accused-appellants. | |||||
|
2014-03-12 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Also, it is a well-entrenched principle that findings of fact of the trial court as to the credibility of witnesses are accorded great weight and respect when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts, and speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. The rationale behind this rule is that the trial court is in a better position to decide the credibility of witnesses, having heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during trial. This rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals.[40] This Court does not find any convincing reason to depart from the ruling of the trial court, which was affirmed by the appellate court. Thus, we affirm the assailed Decision of the appellate court and uphold the conviction of the accused. | |||||
|
2013-07-31 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Also, it is a well-entrenched principle that findings of fact of the trial court as to the credibility of witnesses are accorded great weight and respect when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts, and speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. The rationale behind this rule is that the trial court is in a better position to decide the credibility of witnesses, having heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during trial. This rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals.[45] This Court does not find any convincing reason to depart from the ruling of the trial court, which was affirmed by the appellate court. | |||||
|
2013-04-17 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The explanation of this Court in People v. Cruz[33] with regard to the defenses of denial and frame-up finds applicability in this case, given that Aguilar also accused the police officers of extorting money from her, to wit: Denial or frame-up is a standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law. As such, it has been viewed by the court with disfavor for it can just as easily be concocted. It should not accord a redoubtable sanctuary to a person accused of drug dealing unless the evidence of such frame up is clear and convincing. Without proof of any intent on the part of the police officers to falsely impute appellant in the commission of a crime, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and the principle that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect, deserve to prevail over the bare denials and self-serving claims of appellant that he had been framed up. Neither can appellant's claim of alleged extortion by the police operatives be entertained. Absent any proof, appellant's assertion of extortion allegedly committed by the police officers could not be successfully interposed. It remains one of those standard, worn-out, and impotent excuses of malefactors prosecuted for drug offenses. What appellant could have done was to prove his allegation and not just casually air it. (Citations omitted.) | |||||