Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. NILO SOLAYAO

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 175842 2015-03-18	NILO MACAYAN v. PEOPLE LEONEN, J.
This rule places upon the prosecution the task of establishing the guilt of an accused, relying on the strength of its own evidence, and not banking on the weakness of the defense of an accused. Requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt finds basis not only in the due process clause[35] of the Constitution, but similarly, in the right of an accused to be "presumed innocent until the contrary is proved."[36] "Undoubtedly, it is the constitutional presumption of innocence that lays such burden upon the prosecution."[37] Should the prosecution fail to discharge its burden, it follows, as a matter of course, that an accused must be acquitted. As explained in Basilio v. People of the Philippines:[38]
	GR No. 182010 2010-08-25	SUSAN ESQUILLO Y ROMINES v. PEOPLE CARPIO MORALES, J.
The 0.1224 gram of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride or "Shabu" involved in this case is declared forfeited in favor of the Government and ordered to be turned over to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper and appropriate disposition in accordance with the provisions of the law.[14] (underscoring supplied)
	GR No. 182485 2009-07-03	SPS. HENRY O AND PACITA CHENG v. SPS. JOSE JAVIER AND CLAUDIA DAILISAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence.[21] When a plaintiff's case depends upon the establishment of a negative fact, and the means of proving the fact are equally within the control of each party, then the burden of proof is upon the party averring the negative fact.[22]
	GR No. 132165 2003-03-26	PEOPLE v. MELLY SARAP Y ARCANGELES YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
A search may be conducted by law enforcers only on the strength of a warrant validly issued by a judge as provided in Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution.[14] Articles which are the product of unreasonable searches and seizures are inadmissible as evidence, pursuant to Article III, Section 3 (2) of the Constitution.[15] Warrantless searches and seizures may be made without a warrant in the following instances: (1) search incident to a lawful arrest, (2) search of a moving motor vehicle, (3) search in violation of custom laws, (4) seizure of the evidence in plain view, (5) when the accused himself waives his right against unreasonable searches and seizures,[16] (6) stop and frisk[17] and (7) exigent and emergency circumstances.[18] These instances, however do not dispense with the requisite of probable cause before a warrantless search and seizure can be lawfully conducted. In warrantless search cases, probable cause must only be based on reasonable ground of suspicion or belief that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed.[19]
	GR No. 123137 2001-10-17	PEOPLE v. PO2 ALBERT ABRIOL QUISUMBING, J.
There are eight (8) instances where a warrantless search and seizure is valid. They are: (1) consented searches;[57] (2) as an incident to a lawful arrest;[58] (3) searches of vessels and aircraft for violation of immigration, customs, and drug laws;[59] (4) searches of moving vehicles;[60] (5) searches of automobiles at borders or constructive borders; (6) where the prohibited articles are in "plain view;"[61] (7) searches of buildings and premises to enforce fire, sanitary, and building regulations; and (8) "stop and frisk" operations.[62]