This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-10-13 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| In affirming the RTC's conviction of the accused, the CA observed that the defense of frame-up put up by the accused was discredited by the absence of proof of "any intent on the part of the police authorities to falsely impute such crime against the accused, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty stands."[18] Such outright rejection by the lower courts of Andaya's defense of frame-up is not outrightly binding. For sure, the frame-up defense has been commonly used in prosecutions based on buy-bust operations that have led to the arrest of the suspects.[19] Its use might be seen as excessive, but the failure of the accused to impute any ill motives to falsely incriminate them should not deter us from scrutinizing the circumstances of the cases brought to us for review. We should remind ourselves that we cannot presume that the accused committed the crimes they have been charged with. The State must fully establish that for us. If the imputation of ill motive to the lawmen is the only means of impeaching them, then that would be the end of our dutiful vigilance to protect our citizenry from false arrests and wrongful incriminations. We are aware that there have been in the past many cases of false arrests and wrongful incriminations, and that should heighten our resolve to strengthen the ramparts of judicial scrutiny. | |||||
|
2013-06-13 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| We have held that as a mode of authenticating evidence, the chain-of-custody rule requires that the presentation of the seized prohibited drugs as an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be.[40] This would ideally cover the testimony about every link in the chain, from seizure of the prohibited drug up to the time it is offered in evidence, in such a way that everyone who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, to include, as much as possible, a description of the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain.[41] | |||||
|
2012-12-05 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| While it is true that Del Rosario's defense of denial is an inherently weak one, it bears stressing that his conviction should be based not on such weak defense, but on the strength of the evidence of the prosecution.[41] | |||||
|
2011-06-06 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In cases of dangerous drugs, what is important and necessary is for the prosecution to prove with moral certainty "that the dangerous drug presented in court as evidence against the accused [be] the same item recovered from his possession." [55] | |||||