Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. JAY LORENA Y LABAG

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	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. 190343 2013-02-06	PEOPLE v. SAIBEN LANGCUA Y DAIMLA PEREZ, J.
This Court in People v. Lorena[54] held that: People v. Pringas teaches that non- compliance by the apprehending/buy-bust team with Section 21 is not necessarily fatal. Its non- compliance will not automatically render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. We recognize that the strict compliance with the requirements of Section 21 may not always be possible under field conditions; the police operates under varied conditions, and cannot at all times attend to all the niceties of the procedures in the handling of confiscated evidence. [55]
	GR No. 189277 2012-12-05	PEOPLE v. RICARDO REMIGIO Y ZAPANTA PEREZ, J.
Thus, there are two indispensables. The illegal drug must be offered before the court as exhibit and that which is exhibited must be the very same substance recovered from the suspect. The needfulness of both was stressed in People v. Lorena,[66] where We, after reiterating the elements of the crime of sale of illegal drug, proceeded to state that all these require evidence that the sale transaction transpired coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti, i.e. the body or substance of the crime, which in People v. Martinez,[67] equates as simply in People v. Gutierrez,[68] was referred to as "the drug itself."
	GR No. 189817 2012-10-03	PEOPLE v. REYNA BATALUNA LLANITA PEREZ, J.
In People v. Lorena:[72]
	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]