Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ELISEO MORIN

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 171726 2011-02-23	VICENTE YU CHANG v. REPUBLIC VILLARAMA, JR., J.
On March 22, 1949, petitioners' father, L. Yu Chang[4] and the Municipality of Pili, Camarines Sur, through its then Mayor, Justo Casuncad, executed an Agreement to Exchange Real Property[5] wherein the former assigned and transferred to the Municipality of Pili his 400-square-meter residential lot in Barrio San Roque, Pili, Camarines Sur, in exchange for a 400-square-meter piece of land located in San Juan, Pili. Thereafter, L. Yu Chang and his family took possession of the property thus obtained and erected a residential house and a gasoline station thereon. He also declared the property in his name under Tax Declaration No. 01794[6] and 01795[7] and paid the real property taxes thereon as evidenced by twenty-eight (28) official receipts from February 21, 1951 up to March 10, 1976. When L. Yu Chang died on September 30, 1976, his wife, Donata Sta. Ana and his seven children inherited the property and succeeded in the possession of the property.
	GR Nos. 131736-37 2002-03-11	PEOPLE v. JOEY MANLANSING Y AMBROSIO QUISUMBING, J.
The element of evident premeditation is manifested by the planning and preparation undertaken by the offender prior to the commission of the crime.[48] It is not presumed from the mere lapse of time[49] nor can it be deduced from sheer speculation.[50] An intangible matter, evident premeditation is exhibited from these circumstances --- (1) the time when the offender has appeared determined to commit the crime; (2) the act evidently indicating that the offender has clung to his determination; (3) sufficient lapse of time between the determination to commit the crime and the execution thereof during which the offender could have reflected upon the consequences of his act.[51] In the present case, all three circumstances are present and clear from the testimony alone of Mario. The TSN reads: Q: That conversation about the seedling, how long did it take?
	GR No. 132330 2000-11-28	PEOPLE v. VS.SPO1 JOSE BANGCADO BELLOSILLO, J.
The accused-appellants raise the defense of alibi which is inherently weak. To prosper, alibi must be so convincing as to preclude any doubt that the accused could not have been physically present at the crime scene at the time of the incident.[9] The alibis of the accused clearly show upon examination that this could not have been so.