Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. JESUS G. BATOCTOY

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR NO. 175593 2007-10-17	PEOPLE v. SALVADOR SANTOS TINGA, 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.[39] 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.[40]
	GR NO. 152848 2006-07-12	TERESITA SUSON Y BANZON v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In the case at bar, petitioners were convicted for Violation of Section 15 (Sale), Article III, in relation to Section 21 (Conspiracy), Article IV of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended. Many times, this Court has already ruled that a buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment which has repeatedly been accepted to be a valid means of arresting violators of the Dangerous Drugs Law.[18] In every prosecution for illegal sale of prohibited or regulated drugs, the following elements must be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[19] In proving that the sale was consummated, the prosecution presented the poseur buyer - SPO2 Patiño.
	GR No. 157039 2004-10-01	PEOPLE v. JOSEFINA M. DIMALANTA YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
In the case at bar, the evidence for the prosecution is concededly weak. In such cases, even if the evidence for defense is also weak, the accused must be duly accorded the benefit of the doubt in view of the constitutional presumption of innocence that an accused enjoys. When the circumstances are capable of two or more inferences, as in this case, one of which is consistent with the presumption of innocence while the other is compatible with guilt, the presumption of innocence must prevail and the court must acquit.[23]
	GR No. 154130 2004-08-20	BENITO ASTORGA v. PEOPLE YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
As held in several cases, when the guilt of the accused has not been proven with moral certainty, the presumption of innocence of the accused must be sustained and his exoneration be granted as a matter of right. For the prosecution's evidence must stand or fall on its own merit and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[17] Furthermore, where the evidence for the prosecution is concededly weak, even if the evidence for defense is also weak, the accused must be duly accorded the benefit of the doubt in view of the constitutional presumption of innocence that an accused enjoys. When the circumstances are capable of two or more inferences, as in this case, one of which is consistent with the presumption of innocence while the other is compatible with guilt, the presumption of innocence must prevail and the court must acquit. It is better to acquit a guilty man than to convict an innocent man.[18]