Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ANSON ONG a.k.a. ALLAN CO

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 195528 2013-07-04	PEOPLE v. JOSE CLARA Y BUHAIN PEREZ, J.
The "objective test" in determining the credibility of prosecution witnesses regarding the conduct of buy-bust operation provides that it is the duty of the prosecution to present a complete picture detailing the buy-bust operation from the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the consideration, until the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal subject of sale.[68] The manner by which the initial contact was made, the offer to purchase the drug, the payment of the buy-bust money, and the delivery of the illegal drug must be the subject of strict scrutiny by courts to insure that law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit an offense.[69]
	GR No. 185717 2011-06-08	PEOPLE v. GARRY DE LA CRUZ Y DELA CRUZ VELASCO JR., J.
In the case at bar, the basis of acquittal is reasonable doubt, the evidence for the prosecution not being sufficient to sustain and prove the guilt of appellants with moral certainty. By reasonable doubt is not meant that which of possibility may arise but it is that doubt engendered by an investigation of the whole proof and an inability, after such an investigation, to let the mind rest easy upon the certainty of guilt. An acquittal based on reasonable doubt will prosper even though the appellants' innocence may be doubted, for a criminal conviction rests on the strength of the evidence of the prosecution and not on the weakness of the evidence of the defense. Suffice it to say, a slightest doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused.[44]
	GR No. 178202 2010-05-14	PEOPLE v. NORMAN SITCO VELASCO JR., J.
Given the prosecution's failure to abide by the rules on the chain of custody, the evidentiary presumption that official duties have been regularly performed cannot apply to this case. This presumption, it must be emphasized, is not conclusive. Not only is it rebutted by contrary proof, as here, but it is also inferior to the constitutional presumption of innocence.[34] On this score, we have held that while an accused's defense engenders suspicion that he probably perpetrated the crime charged, it is not sufficient for a conviction that the evidence establishes a strong suspicion or probability of guilt. It is the burden of the prosecution to overcome the presumption of innocence by presenting the quantum of evidence required.[35] This quantum of evidence has not been met in the instant case.
	GR No. 185278 2009-03-13	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO LLAMADO Y CRUZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In this case, appellant is charged with selling "shabu," which is a dangerous drug. Section 3 (ii), Article I of R.A. No. 9165 defines "selling" as "any act of giving away any dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals whether for money or any other consideration." For the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs to prosper, the following elements must be proven: (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.[7]