This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2014-02-18 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| In the more recent case of Valeroso v. People,[275] this court held that:Unreasonable searches and seizures are the menace against which the constitutional guarantees afford full protection. While the power to search and seize may at times be necessary for public welfare, still it may be exercised and the law enforced without transgressing the constitutional rights of the citizens, for no enforcement of any statute is of sufficient importance to justify indifference to the basic principles of government. Those who are supposed to enforce the law are not justified in disregarding the rights of an individual in the name of order. Order is too high a price to pay for the loss of liberty.[276] | |||||
|
2011-06-08 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In sum, considering the multifarious irregularities and non-compliance with the chain of custody, We cannot but acquit accused-appellant on the ground of reasonable doubt. The law demands that only proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt can justify a verdict of guilt.[41] In all criminal prosecutions, without regard to the nature of the defense which the accused may raise, the burden of proof remains at all times upon the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.[42] As the Court often reiterated, 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.[43] | |||||
|
2011-02-15 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| John Lu Ym and Ludo & Luym Development Corporation (LLDC), meanwhile, filed with leave a Motion[5] for the Issuance of an Entry of Judgment of February 2, 2010, which merited an Opposition from David Lu. | |||||
|
2011-02-15 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| (o) all matters involving policy decisions in the administrative supervision of all courts and their personnel.[6] (underscoring supplied) | |||||
|
2011-01-19 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In lawful arrests, it becomes both the duty and the right of the apprehending officers to conduct a warrantless search not only on the person of the suspect, but also in the permissible area within the latter's reach. Otherwise stated, a valid arrest allows the seizure of evidence or dangerous weapons either on the person of the one arrested or within the area of his immediate control. The phrase "within the area of his immediate control" means the area from within which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.[58] Therefore, it is only but expected and legally so for the police to search his car as he was driving it when he was arrested. | |||||