This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-07-04 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Inconsistencies of the prosecution witnesses referring to the events that transpired in the buy-bust operation can overturn the judgment of conviction. As held in Zaragga v. People,[61] material inconsistencies with regard to when and where the markings on the shabu were made and the lack of inventory on the seized drugs created reasonable doubt as to the identity of the corpus delicti. Prosecution's failure to indubitably show the identity of the shabu led to the acquittal of the accused in that case.[62] | |||||
|
2013-06-13 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The law presumes that an accused in a criminal prosecution is innocent until the contrary is proven. This basic constitutional principle is fleshed out by procedural rules which place on the prosecution the burden of proving that an accused is guilty of the offense charged by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the degree of proof has been met is largely left for the trial courts to determine. An appeal, however, throws the whole case open for review such that the Court may, and generally does, look into the entire records if only to ensure that no fact of weight or substance has been overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied by the trial court.[15] | |||||