Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

VALENTIN ZAFRA Y DECHOSA v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 205764 2016-02-03	PEOPLE v. LEE QUIJANO ENAD PERALTA, J.
Reliance on the legal presumptions that the police officers regularly performed their official duty and that the integrity of the evidence is presumed to be preserved will be inadequate to uphold appellant's conviction. After all, the burden of proving the guilt of an accused rests on the prosecution which must rely on the strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness of the defense.[29] When moral certainty as to culpability hangs in the balance, acquittal on reasonable doubt becomes a matter of right, irrespective of the reputation of the accused who enjoys the right to be presumed innocent until the contrary is shown.[30]
	GR No. 198314 2014-09-24	PEOPLE v. RICHARD GUINTO Y SAN ANDRES PEREZ, J.
The present case shows that the prosecution fell short in proving with certainty the culpability of the accused and engendered a doubt on the true circumstances of the buy-bust operation. In dubio pro reo. When moral certainty as to culpability hangs in the balance, acquittal on reasonable doubt inevitably becomes a matter of right.[44]
	GR No. 198804 2014-01-22	CARLITO VALENCIA Y CANDELARIA v. PEOPLE REYES, J.
Although the Court has ruled that non-compliance with the directives of Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution's case,[36] the prosecution must still prove that (a) there is a justifiable ground for the non-compliance, and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved.[37] Further, the non-compliance with the procedures must be justified by the State's agents themselves.[38] The arresting officers are under obligation, should they be unable to comply with the procedures laid down under Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, to explain why the procedure was not followed and prove that the reason provided a justifiable ground. Otherwise, the requisites under the law would merely be fancy ornaments that may or may not be disregarded by the arresting officers at their own convenience.[39]
	GR No. 194382 2013-06-10	PEOPLE PHILIPPINES v. GLORIA CALUMBRES Y AUDITOR PEREZ, J.
It is noteworthy however, that presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions cannot by its lonesome overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence.[6] Nothing less than evidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt can erase the postulate of innocence. And this burden is met not by placing in distrust the innocence of the accused but by obliterating all doubts as to his culpability.[7]