Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. CARLOS DE GUZMAN Y PANALIGAN

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 192432 2014-06-23	PEOPLE v. LARRY MENDOZA Y ESTRADA BERSAMIN, J.
We have usually presumed the regularity of performance of their official duties in favor of the members of buy-bust teams enforcing our laws against the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. Such presumption is based on three fundamental reasons, namely: first, innocence, and not wrong-doing, is to be presumed; second, an official oath will not be violated; and, third, a republican form of government cannot survive long unless a limit is placed upon controversies and certain trust and confidence reposed in each governmental department or agent by every other such department or agent, at least to the extent of such presumption.[27] But the presumption is rebuttable by affirmative evidence of irregularity or of any failure to perform a duty.[28]
	GR No. 181598 2013-03-06	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. ARNEL A. BERNARDO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Nevertheless, the presumption in the aforementioned provision is merely prima facie or disputable. As held in one case, "[a] disputable presumption has been defined as a species of evidence that may be accepted and acted on where there is no other evidence to uphold the contention for which it stands, or one which may be overcome by other evidence."[11]
	AM No. MTJ-08-1699 2009-03-13	RODOLFO B. BAYGAR v. JUDGE LILIAN D. PANONTONGAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Administrative complaints leveled against judges must always be examined with a discriminating eye, for their consequential effects are, by their nature, highly penal, such that respondents stand to face the sanction of dismissal and/or disbarment.[26] A judge enjoys the presumption of regularity in the performance of his function no less than any other public officer.[27] The presumption of regularity of official acts may be rebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty.[28] The presumption, however, prevails until it is overcome by no less than clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Unless the presumption is rebutted, it becomes conclusive. Every reasonable intendment will be made in support of the presumption and in case of doubt as to an officer's act being lawful or unlawful, construction should be in favor of its lawfulness.[29]
	GR NO. 167684 2006-07-31	JAIME O. SEVILLA v. CARMELITA N. CARDENAS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
A disputable presumption has been defined as a species of evidence that may be accepted and acted on where there is no other evidence to uphold the contention for which it stands, or one which may be overcome by other evidence. One such disputable/rebuttable presumption is that an official act or duty has been regularly performed. x x x.[21]