SOME IMPORTANT NOTES ON TRIAL TECHNIQUES AND PLEADINGS ================================================ SOURCE 0003: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. GARRY DE LA CRUZ Y DE LA CRUZ (G.R. 185717, 08 JUNE 2011) SUBJECTS: RA 9165; BUY BUST OPERATION IN DRUG CASE; CHAIN OF COMMAND. (BRIEF TITLE: PEOPLE VS. TRIAL NOTE 0008: IF YOU APPEAR AS COUNSEL OF ACCUSED, ONE CHIEF GOAL IS TO ESTABLISH REASONABLE DOUBT THAT ACCUSED COMMITTED THE CRIME. IN YOUR MEMORANDUM, IT MAY BE BEST TO QUOTE THE FOLLOWING EXCERPT PERTINENT TO REASONABLE DOUBT.

Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd. Flag for inappropriate. TRIAL TECHNIQUE 1 Semester 2012-2013 Judge Marivic Trabajo Daray. COURSE OUTLINE I. Philippines: Commonly Used Objections.

In fine, We repeat what the Court fittingly held in People v. Ong, a case similarly involving a buy-bust operation, thus: The Constitution mandates that an accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt. Gotovij rp server dlya samp 03e. While appellant’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. 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] TRIAL NOTE 0009: IF YOU ARE HANDLING A DRUG CASE AND YOUR THEORY IS THAT THERE WAS NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY RULE, YOU MAY CITE THE FOLLOWING EXCERPT FROM THE ABOVE SOURCE CASE: In sum, considering the multifarious irregularities and non-compliance with the chain of custody, We cannot but acquit accused-appellant on the ground of reasonable doubt. The law demands that only proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt can justify a verdict of guilt. [41] In all criminal prosecutions, without regard to the nature of the defense which the accused may raise, the burden of proof remains at all times upon the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. [42] As the Court often reiterated, it would be better to set free ten men who might probably be guilty of the crime charged than to convict one innocent man for a crime he did not commit. [43] Valeroso v.

Court of Appeals, G.R. 164815, September 3, 2009, 598 SCRA 41, 60; citing People v. 132165, March 26, 2003, 399 SCRA 503, 512. ================================================= ================================================= ================================================= SOURCE 0002: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. GONZALO BALDOGO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT (G.R. 128106-07, 24 JANUARY 2003, CALLEJO, SR., J) SUBJECT: MURDER.

(BRIEF TITLE: PEOPLE VS. BALOGO) TRIAL NOTE 0005: WHY IS THE DECISION OF A TRIAL COURT ALWAYS AFFIRMED? BECAUSE THE TRIAL COURT HAS THE UNIQUE ADVANTAGE OF MONITORING AND OBSERVING AT CLOSE RANGE THE ATTITUDE, CONDUCT AND DEPORTMENT OF WITNESSES. In contrast, the trial court has the unique advantage of monitoring and observing at close range the attitude, conduct and deportment of witnesses as they narrate their respective testimonies before said court. TRIAL NOTE 0006: IN PLEADINGS, LAWYERS USUALLY CITE THE FACT THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE HAS THE ADVANTAGE OF OBSERVING THE DEMEANOR OF THE WITNESSES IN CONVINCING THE APPELLATE COURT THAT THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT MUST BE UPHELD. IS THERE A “SUAVE”, MORE CONVINCING, AUTHORITATIVE, AND POETIC WAY OF STATING THE ABOVE?