This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-07-01 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In conspiracy, it need not be shown that the parties actually came together and agreed in express terms to enter into and pursue a common design. The assent of the minds may be and, from the secrecy of the crime, usually inferred from proof of facts and circumstances which, taken together, indicate that they are parts of some complete whole.[96] Responsibility of a conspirator is not confined to the accomplishment of a particular purpose of conspiracy but extends to collateral acts and offenses incident to and growing out of the purpose intended.[97] | |||||
|
2014-12-01 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| "The defense of extortion and/or frame up is often put up in drug cases in order to cast doubt on the credibility of police officers. This is a serious imputation of a crime hence clear and convincing evidence must be presented to support the same. There must also be a showing that the police officers were inspired by improper motive."[23] In this case, appellants claim that PO1 Sarangaya tried to extort from them P15,000.00 in exchange for their release after they were arrested. However, they failed to substantiate this allegation with clear and convincing evidence. Neither were they able to show that the said police officer was impelled by improper motive in imputing the offense against them. Consequently, appellants' defense of extortion and/or frame-up must fail. | |||||
|
2014-08-18 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Appellant's defenses of denial and frame-up do not deserve credence. Denial cannot prevail over the positive testimony of prosecution witnesses.[24] On the other hand, frame-up is viewed with disfavor since it can easily be fabricated and is a common ploy in prosecution for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Law. For this defense to prosper, it must be proved with clear and convincing evidence. There must also be evidence that the police officers were inspired by improper motive.[25] | |||||