Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. DELFIN CALISO

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 206162 2014-12-10	ALEX M. VALENCERINA v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
In all criminal cases, the prosecution is burdened with the duty of establishing with proof beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of an accused.[12] The determination of whether the prosecution has fulfilled such a heavy burden is left to the trial court, which, in turn, must be satisfied with moral certainty that an accused has indeed committed the crime on the basis of facts and circumstances to warrant a judgment of conviction.[13] Otherwise, where there is reasonable doubt, acquittal must then follow.[14] The premise is that an accused is presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.[15]
	GR No. 202868 2013-10-02	PEOPLE v. MICHAEL ESPERA Y CUYACOT LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Proving the identity of the accused as the malefactor is the prosecution's primary responsibility. Thus, in every criminal prosecution, the identity of the offender, like the crime itself, must be established by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Indeed, the first duty of the prosecution is not to prove the crime but to prove the identity of the criminal, for even if the commission of the crime can be established, there can be no conviction without proof of identity of the criminal beyond reasonable doubt.[49]
	GR No. 157943 2013-09-04	PEOPLE v. GILBERT REYES WAGAS BERSAMIN, J.
In every criminal prosecution, however, the identity of the offender, like the crime itself, must be established by proof beyond reasonable doubt.[28] In that regard, the Prosecution did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that it was Wagas who had defrauded Ligaray by issuing the check.
	GR No. 188969 2013-02-27	PEOPLE v. JOHN ALVIN PONDIVIDA SERENO, C.J.
In People v. Caliso,[9] the Court stated: The identification of a malefactor, to be positive and sufficient for conviction, does not always require direct evidence from an eyewitness; otherwise, no conviction will be possible in crimes where there are no eyewitnesses. Indeed, trustworthy circumstantial evidence can equally confirm the identification and overcome the constitutionally presumed innocence of the accused. Thus, the Court has distinguished two types of positive identification in People v. Gallarde, to wit: (a) that by direct evidence, through an eyewitness to the very commission of the act; and (b) that by circumstantial evidence, such as where the accused is last seen with the victim immediately before or after the crime. The Court said: