Presumption of regularity - G.R. No. 181861

G.R. No. 181861

"x x x.


It is a settled rule that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary.[22] It must be emphasized that their testimonies in open court are considered in line with the presumption that law enforcement officers have performed their duties in a regular manner.[23] In the absence of proof of motive to impute falsely a crime as serious as violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, as well as the findings of the trial court on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, shall prevail over petitioner’s self-serving and uncorroborated denial.[24] Moreover, the factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive and binding on this Court.[25]

x x x."