PP Vs Mamuyac
PP Vs Mamuyac
The PAO enumerated the following lapses of the 42. FINALLY, accused-appellant's defense of
prosecution: frame-up is highly probable under the
circumstances.17 (Boldfacing and italicization in
the original)
From the above, we see that the prosecution the anti-drug operations, which often rely on tips
failed to prove appellant's guilt beyond of confidential assets, prevented the law
reasonable doubt. The prosecution was already enforcers from obtaining the presence of the
lacking in the number of witnesses required by required witnesses even before the offenders
Section 21, and failed to give justifications for the could escape.
absence of any of the three other witnesses. This Apart from the non-observance of the three
lack is further emphasized after Brgy. Chairman witness rule, there is doubt as to whether the
Precidio Caliva Palalay asserted that he did not shabu allegedly seized from the appellant is the
affix the signature appearing on the Inventory same shabu subjected to laboratory examination
Receipt. and presented in the RTC.