Lawyerly

GR No. 205144

2014-11-26

REYES, J.

"Concededly, the evidence of the defense is weak and uncorroborated. This, however, cannot be used to advance the cause of the prosecution as 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. Moreover, when the circumstances are capable of two or more inferences, as in this case, such that one of which is consistent with the presumption of innocence and the other is compatible with guilt, the presumption of innocence must prevail and the court must acquit."[57]

GR No. 200877

2014-11-12

PEOPLE v. CHARVE JOHN LAGAHIT

PEREZ, J.

Concededly, the evidence of the defense is weak and uncorroborated. This, however, cannot be used to advance the cause of the prosecution as 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. Moreover, when the circumstances are capable of two or more inferences, as in this case, such that one of which is consistent with the presumption of innocence and the other is compatible with guilt, the presumption of innocence must prevail and the court must acquit.[34]

GR No. 193768

2014-03-05

PEOPLE v. JERRY CARANTO Y PROPETA

PEREZ, J.

In People v. Santos, Jr.,[36] we held that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot by itself overcome the presumption of innocence nor constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt.[37] It should be noted that the presumption is precisely just that a presumption. Once challenged by evidence, as in this case, it cannot be regarded as binding truth.[38]

GR No. 192261

2011-11-16

PEOPLE v. GARET SALCENA Y VICTORINO

MENDOZA, J.

The Constitution mandates that an accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. Concededly, the evidence for the defense is weak and uncorroborated and could even engender belief that Salcena indeed perpetrated the crime charged. This, however, does not advance the cause of the prosecution because its evidence must stand or fall on its own weight and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense.[47] The prosecution has the burden to overcome the presumption of innocence and prove the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt.

GR No. 191366

2010-12-13

PEOPLE v. ARNOLD MARTINEZ Y ANGELES

MENDOZA, J.

This Court has repeatedly reversed conviction in drug cases for failure to comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, resulting in the failure to properly preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. Some cases are People v. Garcia,[39] People v. Dela Cruz,[40] People v. Dela Cruz,[41] People v. Santos, Jr.,[42] People v. Nazareno,[43] People v. Orteza,[44] Zarraga v. People,[45] and People v. Kimura.[46]

GR No. 188328

2010-08-25

PEOPLE v. JOSELITO NASARA Y DAHAY

CARPIO MORALES, J.

The police officers-members of the buy-bust team cannot bank on the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties. The presumption has been destroyed upon their unjustified failure to conform to the procedural requirements mentioned above.[11]

GR No. 186498

2010-03-26

PEOPLE v. RONALDO DE GUZMAN Y DANZIL

NACHURA, J.

Although the question of whether the degree of proof has been met is largely left for the trial courts to determine, an appeal throws the whole case open for review.[16] Thus, the factual findings of the trial court may be reversed if, by the evidence or the lack of it, it appears that the trial court erred.[17]

GR No. 172092

2009-12-16

PEOPLE v. VS.JOEY TION Y CABADDU

VELASCO JR., J.

In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following must be proved: (1) that the transaction took place; (2) that the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller were identified.[24] With respect to illegal sale of marijuana, its essential elements are: (1) identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (2) delivery of the thing sold and the payment.[25]

GR No. 177220

2009-04-24

PEOPLE v. RUBEN ROBLES Y NOVILINIO

CARPIO MORALES, J.

The failure of the police to comply with the procedure in the custody of seized drugs raises doubt as to their origins,[25] and negates the operation of the presumption of regularity accorded to police officers.[26]

GR No. 182790

2009-04-24

PEOPLE v. CESAR CANTALEJO Y MANLANGIT

TINGA, J.

ATTY. CONCEPCION to VIRGINIA CANTALEJO: Q- When these police officers poked a gun at you, what happened? A- After the police poked a gun at me and our children one policeman said "misis wag kayong aalis diyan." Q- After the conversation, what happened next? A- The man asked me if that is my husband. Q- After that? A- One police officer asked me is it Cesar Cantalejo. Q- What is your answer? A- Yes, ano ho ba ang kailangan ninyo sa amin. Q- And what was his answer? A- The police said may shabu daw sa bahay namin. Q- After that? A- They searched the entire house.[12] While it may be contended that Virginia Cantalejo's testimony is a biased one, it remains the prosecution's task to refute her story such that their version of events is proven to have actually transpired with moral certainty. Moreover, when the circumstances are capable of two or more inferences, as in this case, such that one of which is consistent with the presumption of innocence and the other is compatible with guilt, the presumption of innocence must prevail and the court must acquit.[13] It is worthy of note again that the prosecution did not present rebuttal evidence.[14]

GR No. 182790

2009-04-24

PEOPLE v. CESAR CANTALEJO Y MANLANGIT

TINGA, J.

As stated by the Court in People v. Santos, Jr.,[24] failure to observe the proper procedure also negates the operation of the presumption of regularity accorded to police officers.[25] As a general rule, the testimony of the police officers who apprehended the accused is usually accorded full faith and credit because of the presumption that they have performed their duties regularly.[26] However, when the performance of their duties is tainted with irregularities, such presumption is effectively destroyed.

GR No. 173480

2009-02-25

PEOPLE v. RUIZ GARCIA Y RUIZ

BRION, J.

We reached the same conclusion in People v. Nazareno[27] and People v. Santos, Jr.,[28] and recently, in the cases of People v. Dela Cruz[29] and People v. De la Cruz[30] where we again stressed the importance of complying with the prescribed procedure. We also held that strict compliance is justified under the rule that penal laws shall be construed strictly against the government, and liberally in favor of the accused.[31]

GR No. 175832

2008-10-15

PEOPLE v. SALVADOR SANCHEZ Y ESPIRITU

BRION, J.

More recently, in Zarraga v. People, the Court held that the 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. The Court thus acquitted the accused due to the prosecution's failure to indubitably show the identity of the shabu. [Emphasis supplied] We reached the same conclusion in People v. Nazareno[34] and People v. Santos,[35] where we again stressed the importance of complying with the prescribed procedure.

GR No. 181545

2008-10-08

PEOPLE v. MARK DELA CRUZ

TINGA, J.

As stated by the Court in People v. Santos , Jr.,[31] failure to observe the proper procedure also negates the operation of the presumption of regularity accorded to police officers.[32] As a general rule, the testimony of the police officers who apprehended the accused is usually accorded full faith and credit because of the presumption that they have performed their duties regularly.[33] However, when the performance of their duties is tainted with irregularities, such presumption is effectively destroyed.

GR No. 179939

2008-09-29

PEOPLE v. GERALDINE MAGAT Y PADERON

TINGA, J.

Recently, in People v. Santos, Jr.,[33] which involved violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the Court agreed with the Office of the Solicitor General's observation that the identity of the corpus delicti has not been sufficiently established since the confiscated plastic sachets of shabu have been marked/initialed at the scene of the crime, according to proper procedure.Citing People v. Lim,[34] which specified that any apprehending team having initial control of illegal drugs and/or paraphernalia should, immediately after seizure or confiscation, have the same physically inventoried and photographed in the presence of the accused if there be any, and/or his representative, who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. The failure of the agents to comply with such requirement raises doubt whether what was submitted for laboratory examination and presented in court is the same drug and/or paraphernalia as that actually recovered from the accused.

GR No. 181747

2008-09-26

PEOPLE v. NARCISO AGULAY Y LOPEZ

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

(C) (RH3-RG3) = 0.09 gm[5]

GR No. 170180

2007-11-23

ARSENIO VERGARA VALDEZ v. PEOPLE

TINGA, J,

Concededly, the evidence of the defense is weak and uncorroborated. Nevertheless, this "[c]annot be used to advance the cause of the prosecution as its evidence must stand or fall on its own weight and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense."[46] Moreover, where the circumstances are shown to yield two or more inferences, one inconsistent with the presumption of innocence and the other compatible with the finding of guilt, the court must acquit the accused for the reason that the evidence does not satisfy the test of moral certainty and is inadequate to support a judgment of conviction.[47]

	GR No. 205144 2014-11-26	MARGIE BALERTA v. PEOPLE REYES, J.
"Concededly, the evidence of the defense is weak and uncorroborated. This, however, cannot be used to advance the cause of the prosecution as 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. Moreover, when the circumstances are capable of two or more inferences, as in this case, such that one of which is consistent with the presumption of innocence and the other is compatible with guilt, the presumption of innocence must prevail and the court must acquit."[57]
	GR No. 200877 2014-11-12	PEOPLE v. CHARVE JOHN LAGAHIT PEREZ, J.
Concededly, the evidence of the defense is weak and uncorroborated. This, however, cannot be used to advance the cause of the prosecution as 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. Moreover, when the circumstances are capable of two or more inferences, as in this case, such that one of which is consistent with the presumption of innocence and the other is compatible with guilt, the presumption of innocence must prevail and the court must acquit.[34]
	GR No. 193768 2014-03-05	PEOPLE v. JERRY CARANTO Y PROPETA PEREZ, J.
In People v. Santos, Jr.,[36] we held that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot by itself overcome the presumption of innocence nor constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt.[37] It should be noted that the presumption is precisely just that a presumption. Once challenged by evidence, as in this case, it cannot be regarded as binding truth.[38]
	GR No. 192261 2011-11-16	PEOPLE v. GARET SALCENA Y VICTORINO MENDOZA, J.
The Constitution mandates that an accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. Concededly, the evidence for the defense is weak and uncorroborated and could even engender belief that Salcena indeed perpetrated the crime charged. This, however, does not advance the cause of the prosecution because its evidence must stand or fall on its own weight and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense.[47] The prosecution has the burden to overcome the presumption of innocence and prove the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt.
	GR No. 191366 2010-12-13	PEOPLE v. ARNOLD MARTINEZ Y ANGELES MENDOZA, J.
This Court has repeatedly reversed conviction in drug cases for failure to comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, resulting in the failure to properly preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. Some cases are People v. Garcia,[39] People v. Dela Cruz,[40] People v. Dela Cruz,[41] People v. Santos, Jr.,[42] People v. Nazareno,[43] People v. Orteza,[44] Zarraga v. People,[45] and People v. Kimura.[46]
	GR No. 188328 2010-08-25	PEOPLE v. JOSELITO NASARA Y DAHAY CARPIO MORALES, J.
The police officers-members of the buy-bust team cannot bank on the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties. The presumption has been destroyed upon their unjustified failure to conform to the procedural requirements mentioned above.[11]
	GR No. 186498 2010-03-26	PEOPLE v. RONALDO DE GUZMAN Y DANZIL NACHURA, J.
Although the question of whether the degree of proof has been met is largely left for the trial courts to determine, an appeal throws the whole case open for review.[16] Thus, the factual findings of the trial court may be reversed if, by the evidence or the lack of it, it appears that the trial court erred.[17]
	GR No. 172092 2009-12-16	PEOPLE v. VS.JOEY TION Y CABADDU VELASCO JR., J.
In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following must be proved: (1) that the transaction took place; (2) that the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller were identified.[24] With respect to illegal sale of marijuana, its essential elements are: (1) identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (2) delivery of the thing sold and the payment.[25]
	GR No. 177220 2009-04-24	PEOPLE v. RUBEN ROBLES Y NOVILINIO CARPIO MORALES, J.
The failure of the police to comply with the procedure in the custody of seized drugs raises doubt as to their origins,[25] and negates the operation of the presumption of regularity accorded to police officers.[26]
	GR No. 182790 2009-04-24	PEOPLE v. CESAR CANTALEJO Y MANLANGIT TINGA, J.
ATTY. CONCEPCION to VIRGINIA CANTALEJO: Q- When these police officers poked a gun at you, what happened? A- After the police poked a gun at me and our children one policeman said "misis wag kayong aalis diyan." Q- After the conversation, what happened next? A- The man asked me if that is my husband. Q- After that? A- One police officer asked me is it Cesar Cantalejo. Q- What is your answer? A- Yes, ano ho ba ang kailangan ninyo sa amin. Q- And what was his answer? A- The police said may shabu daw sa bahay namin. Q- After that? A- They searched the entire house.[12] While it may be contended that Virginia Cantalejo's testimony is a biased one, it remains the prosecution's task to refute her story such that their version of events is proven to have actually transpired with moral certainty. Moreover, when the circumstances are capable of two or more inferences, as in this case, such that one of which is consistent with the presumption of innocence and the other is compatible with guilt, the presumption of innocence must prevail and the court must acquit.[13] It is worthy of note again that the prosecution did not present rebuttal evidence.[14]
	GR No. 182790 2009-04-24	PEOPLE v. CESAR CANTALEJO Y MANLANGIT TINGA, J.
As stated by the Court in People v. Santos, Jr.,[24] failure to observe the proper procedure also negates the operation of the presumption of regularity accorded to police officers.[25] As a general rule, the testimony of the police officers who apprehended the accused is usually accorded full faith and credit because of the presumption that they have performed their duties regularly.[26] However, when the performance of their duties is tainted with irregularities, such presumption is effectively destroyed.
	GR No. 173480 2009-02-25	PEOPLE v. RUIZ GARCIA Y RUIZ BRION, J.
We reached the same conclusion in People v. Nazareno[27] and People v. Santos, Jr.,[28] and recently, in the cases of People v. Dela Cruz[29] and People v. De la Cruz[30] where we again stressed the importance of complying with the prescribed procedure. We also held that strict compliance is justified under the rule that penal laws shall be construed strictly against the government, and liberally in favor of the accused.[31]
	GR No. 175832 2008-10-15	PEOPLE v. SALVADOR SANCHEZ Y ESPIRITU BRION, J.
More recently, in Zarraga v. People, the Court held that the 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. The Court thus acquitted the accused due to the prosecution's failure to indubitably show the identity of the shabu. [Emphasis supplied] We reached the same conclusion in People v. Nazareno[34] and People v. Santos,[35] where we again stressed the importance of complying with the prescribed procedure.
	GR No. 181545 2008-10-08	PEOPLE v. MARK DELA CRUZ TINGA, J.
As stated by the Court in People v. Santos , Jr.,[31] failure to observe the proper procedure also negates the operation of the presumption of regularity accorded to police officers.[32] As a general rule, the testimony of the police officers who apprehended the accused is usually accorded full faith and credit because of the presumption that they have performed their duties regularly.[33] However, when the performance of their duties is tainted with irregularities, such presumption is effectively destroyed.
	GR No. 179939 2008-09-29	PEOPLE v. GERALDINE MAGAT Y PADERON TINGA, J.
Recently, in People v. Santos, Jr.,[33] which involved violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the Court agreed with the Office of the Solicitor General's observation that the identity of the corpus delicti has not been sufficiently established since the confiscated plastic sachets of shabu have been marked/initialed at the scene of the crime, according to proper procedure.Citing People v. Lim,[34] which specified that any apprehending team having initial control of illegal drugs and/or paraphernalia should, immediately after seizure or confiscation, have the same physically inventoried and photographed in the presence of the accused if there be any, and/or his representative, who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. The failure of the agents to comply with such requirement raises doubt whether what was submitted for laboratory examination and presented in court is the same drug and/or paraphernalia as that actually recovered from the accused.
	GR No. 181747 2008-09-26	PEOPLE v. NARCISO AGULAY Y LOPEZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
(C) (RH3-RG3) = 0.09 gm[5]
	GR No. 170180 2007-11-23	ARSENIO VERGARA VALDEZ v. PEOPLE TINGA, J,
Concededly, the evidence of the defense is weak and uncorroborated. Nevertheless, this "[c]annot be used to advance the cause of the prosecution as its evidence must stand or fall on its own weight and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense."[46] Moreover, where the circumstances are shown to yield two or more inferences, one inconsistent with the presumption of innocence and the other compatible with the finding of guilt, the court must acquit the accused for the reason that the evidence does not satisfy the test of moral certainty and is inadequate to support a judgment of conviction.[47]

PEOPLE v. SALVADOR SANTOS