Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ODON PECHO v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 157943 2013-09-04	PEOPLE v. GILBERT REYES WAGAS BERSAMIN, J.
There is no question that an identification that does not preclude a reasonable possibility of mistake cannot be accorded any evidentiary force.[43] Thus, considering that the circumstances of the identification of Wagas as the person who transacted on the rice did not preclude a reasonable possibility of mistake, the proof of guilt did not measure up to the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt demanded in criminal cases. Perforce, the accused's constitutional right of presumption of innocence until the contrary is proved is not overcome, and he is entitled to an acquittal,[44] even though his innocence may be doubted.[45]
	GR No. 189343 2013-07-10	BENILDA N. BACASMAS v. SANDIGANBAYAN SERENO, C.J.
Undue injury means actual damage.[83] It must be established by evidence[84] and must have been caused by the questioned conduct of the offenders.[85] On the other hand, unwarranted benefit, advantage, or preference means giving a gain of any kind without justification or adequate reasons.[86]
	GR No. 158362 2011-04-04	PEOPLE v. GILBERTO VILLARICO BERSAMIN, J.
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 the identity of the criminal beyond reasonable doubt.[22] In that regard, an identification that does not preclude a reasonable possibility of mistake cannot be accorded any evidentiary force.[23] The intervention of any mistake or the appearance of any weakness in the identification simply means that the accused's constitutional right of presumption of innocence until the contrary is proved is not overcome, thereby warranting an acquittal,[24] even if doubt may cloud his innocence.[25] Indeed, the presumption of innocence constitutionally guaranteed to every individual is forever of primary importance, and every conviction for crime must rest on the strength of the evidence of the State, not on the weakness of the defense.[26]
	AC. NO. 5839 2006-08-22	ARTURO C. SAMPANA v. ATTY. EDGARDO J. ANGARA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is well-settled that conspiracy must be shown to exist as clearly and as convincingly as the commission of the offense itself.[45] Evidently, complainant failed to establish the existence of conspiracy between respondents Raval and Angara.
	GR No. 154182 2004-12-17	EDGAR Y. TEVES v. SANDIGANBAYAN DAVIDE JR., CJ.
Certainly, there is no conspiracy in just being married to an erring spouse.[28] For a spouse or any person to be a party to a conspiracy as to be liable for the acts of the others, it is essential that there be intentional participation in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common design. Except when he is the mastermind in a conspiracy, it is necessary that a conspirator should have performed some overt act as a direct or indirect contribution in the execution of the crime planned to be committed. The overt act must consist of active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself or of moral assistance to his co-conspirators.[29]
	GR Nos. 133583-85 2002-02-20	PEOPLE v. ROBERTO BERNAS Y NACARIO PANGANIBAN, J.
"x x x. In order that this requirement may be satisfied, facts must be stated; not conclusions of law. Every crime is made up of certain acts and intent; these must be set forth in the complaint with reasonable particularity of time, place, names (plaintiff or defendant), and circumstances. In short, the complaint must contain a specific allegation of every fact and circumstance necessary to constitute the crime charged."[26] Since the Information in Criminal Case No. L-1889 fails to allege the essential elements of qualified rape, appellant should not have been convicted of that crime. Otherwise, his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him would be violated. And yet, counsel advised him to plead guilty of qualified rape, and the trial court convicted him accordingly.
	GR No. 124036 2001-10-23	FIDELINO GARCIA v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
In the present case, the appellate court held that an allegation of conspiracy is implied in, or may be inferred from, the statement that "the said accused, armed with a knife, a piece of wood and a broken bottle, with intent to kill, and taking advantage of their superior strength and with treachery, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attack, hit with said piece of wood and stab with the said knife and broken bottle one Paulino Rodolfo y Olgena." But we agree with appellant that here the information does not satisfy the requirement that the conspiracy must be conveyed in "appropriate language."[17] The words "conspired," "confederated," or the phrase "acting in concert" or "in conspiracy," or their synonyms or derivatives do not appear in the indictment.[18] The language used by the prosecution in charging the three accused contains no reference to conspiracy. Conspiracy must be alleged, not merely inferred, in the information. Absence of a particular statement in the accusatory portion of the charge sheet concerning any definitive act constituting conspiracy in Criminal Case No. 2307-G renders the indictment insufficient to hold one accused liable for the individual acts of his co-accused. An accused must be furnished with a description of the charge against him to enable him to make a proper defense and, later, to avail himself properly of either a conviction or acquittal for his protection against further prosecution for the same cause.[19] In our view, petitioner Fidelino Garcia cannot be convicted as a conspirator in the killing of Paulino Rodolfo, for the simple reason that the information against the accused contained no clear and definite allegation of conspiracy.
	GR No. 137599 2001-10-08	PEOPLE v. GILBERT BAULITE PARDO, J.
In our criminal justice system, the overriding consideration is not whether the court doubts the innocence of the accused but whether it entertains a reasonable doubt as to his guilt.[17] Where there is reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, he must be acquitted even though his innocence may be doubted since the constitutional right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty can only be overthrown by proof beyond reasonable doubt.[18]
	GR No. 130602 2000-03-15	PEOPLE v. MICHAEL FRONDA Y QUINDARA DAVIDE JR., C.J.
In every criminal prosecution, the identity of the offender or offenders, like the crime itself, must be established by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Identification which does not preclude a reasonable possibility of mistake cannot be accorded any evidentiary force.[16] Thus, where eyewitnesses contradict themselves on the identity of the malefactor, the element of reasonable doubt is injected and cannot be lightly disregarded.[17] In the absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt as to the identity of the culprit, the accused's constitutional right of presumption of innocence until the contrary is proved is not overcome, and he is entitled to an acquittal[18] even though his innocence may be doubted.[19] The constitutional presumption of innocence guaranteed to every individual is of primary importance, and the conviction of the accused must rest not on the weakness of the defense but on the strength of the evidence for the prosecution.[20]