This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2015-10-14 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| It is lamentable that the RTC and even the CA overlooked the significance of the absence of this glaring detail in the records of the case. Instead, the lower courts focused their deliberations on the warrantless arrest of Mirondo in arriving at their respective conclusions. In sustaining the prosecution's case, the RTC and the CA inevitably relied on the evidentiary presumption that official duties had been regularly performed. Let it be underscored that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties can be rebutted by contrary proof, being a mere presumption, and more importantly, it is inferior to, and could not prevail over, the constitutional presumption of innocence.[28] | |||||
|
2011-11-16 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The foregoing conflicting narrations and improbabilities, seemingly trivial when viewed in isolation, cast serious doubt on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses when considered together. Unfortunately, they were glossed over by the RTC and the CA invoking the presumption that barangay tanod Catubay and Esguerra were in the regular performance of their bounden duties at the time of the incident. It should be stressed, however, that while the court is mindful that the law enforcers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties, this presumption cannot prevail over the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent and it cannot, by itself, constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.[31] The attendant circumstances negate the presumption accorded to these prosecution witnesses. | |||||
|
2011-07-13 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In sustaining the conviction, the courts a quo relied on the evidentiary presumption that official duties have been regularly performed. Admittedly, the defense did not adduce evidence showing that PO1 Antonio and PO1 Jiro III had any ill motive to falsify their testimony. Nonetheless, the flagrant procedural lapses the police officers committed in handling the allegedly confiscated shabu in violation of the chain of custody requirement effectively negate the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties. Any taint of irregularity affects the whole performance and should make the presumption unavailable. [32] It must be emphasized that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot by itself overcome the presumption of innocence nor constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. [33] | |||||
|
2010-02-22 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Sale or possession of a dangerous drug can never be proven without seizure and identification of the prohibited drug. In People v. Magat,[26] we held that the existence of dangerous drugs is a condition sine qua non for conviction for the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs, it being the very corpus delicti of the crime. In prosecutions involving narcotics, the narcotic substance itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Of paramount importance therefore in these cases is that the identity of the dangerous drug be likewise established beyond reasonable doubt.[27] | |||||
|
2009-06-30 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Nevertheless, while the seized drugs may be admitted in evidence, it does not necessarily follow that the same should be given evidentiary weight if the procedures provided by Rep. Act No. 9165 were not complied with. The admissibility of the seized dangerous drugs in evidence should not be equated with its probative value in proving the corpus delicti. The admissibility of evidence depends on its relevance and competence while the weight of evidence pertains to evidence already admitted and its tendency to convince and persuade.[34] | |||||