Quotable quotes:

While it is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is equally true that
every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure to
inure an orderly and speedy administration of justice.
-Republic of the
Philippines vs. Kenrick Development Corp., G.R. No. 149576

Concomitant to a procedure adopting a liberal construction of the rules should be an

effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to explain his failure to abide by the
rules.
-Abrenica vs. Law Frim of Abrenica
The liberality in the interpretation and application of the rules applies only in
proper cases and under justifiable causes and circumstances.

Positive identification where categorical and consistent and without any showing of
ill motive on the part of the eye witness testifying on the matter prevails over a
denial which, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence is negative and
self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law. They cannot be given greater
evidentiary value over the testimony of credible witness who testify on affirmative
matters.
-People of the Philippines vs. Ricardo Piosang, G.R. No. 200329
Inre:
The well-established rule is that denial and alibi are self-serving negative evidence;
they cannot prevail over the spontaneous, positive, and credible testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses who pointed to and identified the accused-appellant as the
malefactor.
-People of the Philippines vs. Noel Adallon y Tunge, G.R. No. 182522, March 7, 2012
Prima facie evidence denotes evidence which, if unexplained or uncontradicted,
is sufficient to sustain the proposition it supports or to establish the facts.

Preponderance of evidence is a phrase which, in the last analysis, means probability

of the truth. It is evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief
than that which is offered in opposition thereto.
-Cavile vs. Latania-Hong, G.R. No. 179540, March 13, 2009

It is a rule of evidence that any objection against the admission of any piece of
evidence must be made at the proper time and that if not so made it will be
understood to have been waived

-People vs. Alvin Del Rosario, G.R. No. 189580, February 9, 2011

Doctrine of fruit of poisonous tree

If the warrant issued by the judge did not comply with the requisites of the law, and
therefore, void, or when the search made without warrant is unjustifiable, whether it
is found or discovered afterwards, cannot be used as evidence against the suspect.
The items or articles obtained are the fruits of a poisonous tree. (people vs.
Burgos; 144 SCRA 1)
Evidence obtained and confiscated on the occasion of such an unreasonable search
and seizure is tainted and should be excluded for being the proverbial fruit of a
poisonous tree. In the language of the fundamental law, it shall be inadmissible in
evidence for any purpose in any proceeding. (Margarita Ambre Y Cayuni vs. People
of the Philippines; GR no. 191532)

Determination of probable cause:

The judge in determining probable cause must do so only after personally
examining under oath the complainant and his witnesses. The oath required must
refer to the truth of the facts within the personal knowledge of the petitioner or his
witnesses, because the purpose therefore is to convince the magistrate, not the
individual making the affidavit and seeking the issuance of the warrant, of the
existence of probable cause. Alvarez vs CFI of tayabas 64 phil 33
Reliable information is insufficient.

Signature:
The signature of the accused on the receipt of property seized is a declaration
against his interest and a tacit admission of the crime charged, for unexplained
possession of prohibited drugs is punishable by law. The signature of the accused is
tantamount to an uncounseled extrajudicial confession by the Bill of rights. It is,
therefore, inadmissible against him. People vs Mauyao 207 SCRA 732

Warrantless search of a moving vehicle is allowed only when it is not practicable to

secure a warrant. People vs Lapitaje 397 SCRA 674

In Bagista case (214 SCRA 63), that is in no way, however, gives the police officers
unlimited discretion to conduct warrantless searches of automobiles in the absence
of probable cause. When vehicle is stopped and subjected to an extensive search,
such a warrantless search have reasonable or probable cause to believe before

search that they will find the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a crime, in
the vehicle to be searched.

Chain of custody
Chain of custody establishes the identity of the subject substance. It requires that
testimony be presented about every link in the chain, from the moment the item is
seized up to the time it is offered in evidence. When nagging doubts persist on
whether the item confiscated is the same specimen examined and established to be
prohibited, there can be no crime of illegal possession of a prohibited drug.
Clearly, the law itself lays down exceptions to its requirements. Thus, noncompliance with the provision is not fatal. In fact, it is settled that non-compliance
with section 21 of the IRR does not render an accuseds arrest illegal or make the
items seized inadmissible. What is imperative is the preservation of the integrity
and the evidential value of the seized items as the same would be utilized in the
determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.
The last paragraph of section 21 (a), Article II of the IRR of RA no. 9165 provides a
saving mechanism to ensure that not every case of non-compliance will irretrievably
prejudice the prosecutions case. To warrant application of this saving mechanism,
however, the prosecution must likewise demonstrate that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the evidence seized have been preserved.
Function
The function of the claim of the custody requirement is to ensure that the integrity
and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, so much so that
unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the evidence are removed. Peopl of the
Philippines vs Saiben Langcuay daimla; GR no. 190343