This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2012-12-10 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Hambora's asseveration that he was merely framed up is self-serving and uncorroborated, and must fail in light of the straightforward and positive testimonies of PO2 Lasco and his team of police officers identifying him as the seller of the shabu. Since he was caught in flagrante delicto of illegally selling shabu, Hambora is liable for violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165. As aptly discussed by the CA, "the alleged inconsistencies emphasized by (Hambora) are very trivial and does not in any way affect the core of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses"[15] that an illegal sale of shabu transpired between him and PO2 Lasco. Well-settled is the rule that "discrepancies referring to minor details, and not in actuality touching upon the central fact of the crime, do not impair [the witnesses'] credibility nor do they overcome the presumption that the arresting officers have regularly performed their official duties".[16] | |||||