Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ANGELITO TAN Y NUBLA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 181494 2009-03-17	PEOPLE v. MONALYN CERVANTES Y SOLAR VELASCO JR., J.
The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot be used as basis for affirming accused-appellant's conviction because, "[f]irst, the presumption is precisely just that--a mere presumption. Once challenged by evidence, as in this case, x x x [it] cannot be regarded as binding truth. Second, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions cannot preponderate over the presumption of innocence that prevails if not overthrown by proof beyond reasonable doubt."[38] For failure then of the prosecution to establish the guilt of accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt, she must perforce be exonerated from criminal liability. The facts and the law of the case call for this kind of disposition.
	GR NO. 175593 2007-10-17	PEOPLE v. SALVADOR SANTOS TINGA, J.
Consequently, courts are required to put the prosecution evidence through the crucible of a severe testing, and the presumption of innocence requires them to take a more than casual consideration of every circumstance or doubt favoring the innocence of the accused.[35]
	GR No. 133006 2004-06-09	PEOPLE v. JOHN ISNANI Y ILINGAN SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Under the above provisions, the elements necessary in every prosecution for the illegal sale of "shabu" are: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[7]
	GR Nos. 137458-59 2003-04-24	PEOPLE v. JESUS G. BATOCTOY QUISUMBING, J.
In these cases, a close and careful scrutiny of the evidence on record discloses that they fall under the exceptions. 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.[26] We find that the prosecution's evidence consisting chiefly of the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Palencia and Soriano is so riddled with loopholes and inconsistencies as to create reasonable doubt, rather than moral certainty as to the guilt of appellants.
	GR Nos. 136066-67 2003-02-04	PEOPLE v. BINAD SY CHUA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
All told, the absence of ill-motive on the part of the arresting team cannot simply validate, much more cure, the illegality of the arrest and consequent warrantless search of accused-appellant. Neither can the presumption of regularity of performance of function be invoked by an officer in aid of the process when he undertakes to justify an encroachment of rights secured by the Constitution.[31] In People v. Nubla,[32] we clearly stated that:The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot be used as basis for affirming accused-appellant's conviction because, first, the presumption is precisely just that a mere presumption. Once challenged by evidence, as in this case, xxx [it] cannot be regarded as binding truth. Second, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions cannot preponderate over the presumption of innocence that prevails if not overthrown by proof beyond reasonable doubt.