This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2014-04-21 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In the present case, the lack of conclusive identification of the illegal drugs allegedly seized from petitioner due to the failure of the police to mark, inventory and photograph the seized plastic sachet effectively negated the presumption of regularity. The procedural lapses by the police put in doubt the identity and evidentiary value of the seized plastic sachet. Our ruling in People v. Cantalejo[28] on this point is particularly instructive: As a general rule, the testimony of the police officers who apprehended the accused is usually accorded full faith and credit because of the presumption that they have performed their duties regularly. However, when the performance of their duties is tainted with irregularities, such presumption is effectively destroyed. | |||||
|
2013-06-10 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| We reiterate that this Court will never waver in ensuring that the prescribed procedures in the handling of the seized drugs should be observed. In People v. Salonga,[9] we acquitted the accused for the failure of the police to inventory and photograph the confiscated items. We also reversed a conviction in People v. Gutierrez,[10] for the failure of the buy-bust team to inventory and photograph the seized items without justifiable grounds. People v. Cantalejo[11] also resulted in an acquittal because no inventory or photograph was ever made by the police. | |||||
|
2012-12-05 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| As Del Rosario asserts,[26] the Constitution[27] demands that an accused like him be presumed innocent until otherwise proven beyond reasonable doubt.[28] Section 2, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court likewise requires proof beyond reasonable doubt to justify a conviction in a criminal case; otherwise, the accused is entitled to an acquittal. | |||||
|
2012-04-25 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| We reiterate, that this Court will never waver in ensuring that the prescribed procedures in the handling of the seized drugs should be observed. In People v. Salonga,[41] we acquitted the accused for the failure of the police to inventory and photograph the confiscated items. We also reversed a conviction in People v. Gutierrez,[42] for the failure of the buy-bust team to inventory and photograph the seized items without justifiable grounds. People v. Cantalejo[43] also resulted in an acquittal because no inventory or photograph was ever made by the police. | |||||
|
2011-06-08 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| While 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.[40] | |||||
|
2011-02-23 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| While law enforcers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties, this presumption is disputable by contrary proof and cannot prevail over the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent.[7] The totality of the evidence presented in this case does not support Paloma's conviction for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165, since the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the offense.[8] | |||||
|
2009-10-02 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant relies solely on her word against that of the police officers, who are presumed to have done their official duties in a regular manner. As a general rule, the testimony of the police officers who apprehended the accused is usually accorded full faith and credit because of the presumption that they have performed their duties regularly. But when the performance of their duties is tainted with irregularities, such presumption is effectively destroyed.[10] | |||||