Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ERLINDA CAPUNO Y TISON

This case has been cited 10 times or more.

	GR No. 209464 2015-07-01	DANDY L. DUNGO v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
In considering a criminal case, it is critical to start with the law's own starting perspective on the status of the accused - in all criminal prosecutions, he is presumed innocent of the charge laid unless the contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt.[107] In criminal law, proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such degree of proof that produces absolute certainty. Only moral certainty is required or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.[108]
	GR No. 205889 2015-02-04	PEOPLE v. SANDER DACUMA Y LUNSOD PEREZ, J.
While we share the same observation of the trial courts that the version of the accused was highly implausible to become worthy of belief and contrary to human experience, we cannot turn a blind eye on the presumption of innocence of the accused. The burden lies on the prosecution to overcome such presumption of innocence by presenting the quantum of evidence required. In so doing, the prosecution must rest on its own merits and must not rely on the weakness of the defense. And if the prosecution fails to meet the required amount of evidence, the defense may logically not even present evidence on its own behalf.[19] Settled is the rule that the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own weight and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense.[20]
	GR No. 193670 2014-12-03	PEOPLE v. VENERANDO DELA CRUZ Y SEBASTIAN DEL CASTILLO, J.
Chain of custody is "the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction."[5] It eliminates doubts concerning the proper preservation of the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti or the shabu in this case. Marking of the seized shabu is the initial stage in the chain of custody in buy-bust operations. As requisites, the marking must be made in the presence of the apprehended offender and upon immediate confiscation, and this contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team.[6]
	GR No. 183700 2014-10-13	PEOPLE v. PABLITO ANDAYA Y REANO BERSAMIN, J.
Proof of the transaction must be credible and complete. In every criminal prosecution, it is the State, and no other, that bears the burden of proving the illegal sale of the dangerous drug beyond reasonable doubt.[13] This responsibility imposed on the State accords with the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused, who has no duty to prove his innocence until and unless the presumption of innocence in his favor has been overcome by sufficient and competent evidence.[14]
	GR No. 195528 2013-07-04	PEOPLE v. JOSE CLARA Y BUHAIN PEREZ, J.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.[48] It must rest on its own merits and must not rely on the weakness of the defense. If the prosecution fails to meet the required amount of evidence, the defense may logically not even present evidence on its own behalf, in which case, the presumption prevails and the accused should necessarily be acquitted.[49]
	GR No. 194382 2013-06-10	PEOPLE PHILIPPINES v. GLORIA CALUMBRES Y AUDITOR PEREZ, J.
We reached the same conclusions in the recent cases of People v. Capuno,[12] People v. Lorena,[13] and People v. Martinez,[14] all in obedience to the basic and elementary precept that the burden of proving the guilt of an accused lies on the prosecution which must rely on the strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness of the defense. At the base, of course, is the constitutional presumption of innocence unless and until the contrary is shown.
	GR No. 188107 2012-12-05	PEOPLE v. RONALD M. DEL ROSARIO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
It must be remembered that to successfully prosecute a case of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, it is not enough that the buyer, seller, and consideration for the transaction are identified. It is equally important that the object of the case is identified with certainty. The prosecution must be able to account for each link in the chain of custody over the shabu, from the moment it was seized from Del Rosario, up to the time it was presented in court as proof of the corpus delicti, "i.e., the body or substance of the crime that establishes that a crime has actually been committed, as shown by presenting the object of the illegal transaction."[32] Elucidating on the importance of the foregoing, this Court, in People v. Alcuizar,[33] held: The dangerous drug itself, the shabu in this case, constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and in sustaining a conviction under Republic Act No. 9165, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must definitely be shown to have been preserved. This requirement necessarily arises from the illegal drug's unique characteristic that renders it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident or otherwise. Thus, to remove any doubt or uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized drug, evidence must definitely show that the illegal drug presented in court is the same illegal drug actually recovered from the accused-appellant; otherwise, the prosecution for possession under Republic Act No. 9165 fails. (Citation omitted.)
	GR No. 190749 2012-04-25	VALENTIN ZAFRA Y DECHOSA v. PEOPLE PEREZ, J.
We reached the same conclusions in the recent cases of People v. Capuno,[44] People v. Lorena,[45] and People v. Martinez.[46]
	GR No. 179344 2011-08-03	PEOPLE v. EDGARDO FERMIN Y GREGORIO PEREZ, J.
The fundamentals of a criminal prosecution were, indeed, disregarded. In considering a criminal case, it is critical to start with the law's own starting perspective on the status of the accused - in all criminal prosecutions, he is presumed innocent of the charged laid unless the contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt.[49] The burden lies on the prosecution to overcome such presumption of innocence by presenting the quantum of evidence required. To repeat, the prosecution must rest on its own merits and must not rely on the weakness of the defense. And if the prosecution fails to meet the required amount of evidence, the defense may logically not even present evidence on its own behalf. In which case, the presumption prevails and the accused should necessarily be acquitted.[50]