This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-11-27 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, accused-appellants' uncorroborated defenses of denial and frame-up cannot prevail over the prosecution witnesses' positive testimonies, coupled with the presentation in court by the prosecution of the corpus delicti. Prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation. Oft-repeated is the rule that in cases involving violations of Republic Act No. 9165, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers (or in this case, NBI agents) for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary. Absent any indication that the NBI agents herein were ill motivated in testifying against accused-appellants, their testimonies deserve full credence.[31] In contrast, the defenses of denial and frame-up have been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor for it can easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in prosecutions for violation of Republic Act No. 9165. In order to prosper, the defenses of denial and frame-up must be proved with strong and convincing evidence.[32] Accused-appellants presented no such evidence in this case. | |||||
|
2012-10-24 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Furthermore, We find enlightenment in People v. Vicente, Jr.:[32] | |||||