Positive Negative Evidence, in general; Denial

PEOPLE VS. REYES

Positive Evidence: When a witness affirms in the stand that a certain state of facts does
exist or that a certain event happened.

Negative Evidence: When the witness states that an event did not occur or that a state od
facts alleged to exist does not actually exist

The Supreme Court (SC) viewed the defense of denial with disfavor for being inherently
weak which cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses that appellant committed the crime.—As regards appellant’s defense of denial,
suffice it to say that we have viewed this defense with disfavor for being inherently weak
which cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses
that appellant committed the crime.

FACTS:

An information charging the appellant with violation of Sec 5 Art 2 of RA 9165. That on June
29, 2005, did there and then willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to a poseu
buy Shabu. The appellant pleaded not guilty during his arraignment

*Pros. Version: A confidential informant went to PDEA to report to SPO1 Acosta that
appellant was selling shabu. They formed a buy bust team and designated Acosta as poseur
buyer. After affirming the identity of the appellant, Acosta gave the signal and they arrested
the appellant. Acosta took possession of the items seized and marked them. After the
qualitative examination the contents were confirmed to be shabu.

*Defense Version: He denied the accusation against him. Claimed that on June 28, 2005 he
was on a bus bound for San Fernando City. While on his way to his hotel, a car blocked the
road and 4 men pointed their guns at him. He was instructed to board the car, face the wall,
take off his clothes, confiscated his bag and asked him why there was shabu inside. He
denied possession. He spent the night in detention and was brought to RTC the following
morning.

The RTC found him guilty. Notice to appeal was approved, but the CA affirmed the RTC’s
judgement of conviction.

ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC and CA is correct in giving credence to the narration of the
incident by the prosecution witness, who as police officers, are presumed to have regularly
performed their official duties over the assertion of the appellant.

RULING: Yes, they are correct.

It was ruled that as regards to the appellant’s defense of denial, it is suffice to say that we
have viewed this defense with disfavor for being inherently weak which cannot prevail over
that positive and credible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that appellant committed
the crime.

In this case, the positive testimony of SP01 Acosta that appellant was informed of his
constitutional rights upon arrest also prevails over the corroborated and self-serving
testimony to the contrary of the latter. The guilt of the appellant was established by the
testimonies of the police officers.

Wherefore, this court affirmed the decision of the RTC with modifications

Page 1 of 1