This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2009-09-03 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Without the illegally seized firearm, Valeroso's conviction cannot stand. There is simply no sufficient evidence to convict him.[56] All told, the guilt of Valeroso was not proven beyond reasonable doubt measured by the required moral certainty for conviction. The evidence presented by the prosecution was not enough to overcome the presumption of innocence as constitutionally ordained. Indeed, it would be better to set free ten men who might probably be guilty of the crime charged than to convict one innocent man for a crime he did not commit.[57] | |||||
|
2009-07-17 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Articles which are the product of unreasonable searches and seizures are inadmissible as evidence pursuant to Article III, Section 3(2) of the Constitution.[18] However, in this case, we sustain the validity of the search conducted in petitioner's residence and, thus, the articles seized during the search are admissible in evidence against petitioner. | |||||
|
2007-11-23 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| However, to determine the admissibility of the seized drugs in evidence, it is indispensable to ascertain whether or not the search which yielded the alleged contraband was lawful. The search, conducted as it was without a warrant, is justified only if it were incidental to a lawful arrest.[19] Evaluating the evidence on record in its totality, as earlier intimated, the reasonable conclusion is that the arrest of petitioner without a warrant is not lawful as well. | |||||
|
2007-03-22 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| The above rule, however, is not devoid of exceptions. In People v. Sarap,[7] we listed the exceptions where search and seizure may be conducted without warrant, thus: (1) search incident to a lawful arrest; (2) search of a moving motor vehicle; (3) search in violation of customs laws; (4) seizure of the evidence in plain view; (5) search when the accused himself waives his right against unreasonable searches and seizures; (6) stop and frisk; and (7) exigent and emergency circumstances. The only requirement in these exceptions is the presence of probable cause. Probable cause is the existence of such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonable, discreet, and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place to be searched.[8] In People v. Aruta,[9] we ruled that in warrantless searches, probable cause must only be based on reasonable ground of suspicion or belief that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed. There is no hard and fast rule or fixed formula in determining probable cause for its determination varies according to the facts of each case. | |||||
|
2003-10-01 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| While we strongly condemn the pervasive proliferation of illegal job recruiters and syndicates preying on innocent people anxious to obtain employment abroad, nevertheless, we find the pieces of evidence insufficient to prove the guilt of appellant beyond reasonable doubt. They do not pass the requisite moral certainty, as they admit of the alternative inference that other persons, not necessarily the appellant, may have perpetrated the crime. Where the evidence admits of two interpretations, one of which is consistent with guilt, and the other with innocence, the accused must be acquitted. Indeed, it would be better to set free ten men who might be probably guilty of the crime charged than to convict one innocent man for a crime he did not commit.[23] | |||||
|
2003-09-26 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The police thus arrested Tudtud and his companion, informed them of their rights and brought them to the police station.[26] The two did not resist.[27] | |||||