Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. EDUARDO GOMEZ

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 152997 2004-11-10	SALVADOR MARZALADO v. PEOPLE QUISUMBING, J.
However, still incumbent upon the prosecution is to establish the criminal intent and the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Criminal cases rise and fall on the strength of the evidence of the prosecution and not the weakness of the evidence of the defense or the lack of it.[15] In the prosecution for trespass, the material fact or circumstance to be considered is the occurrence of the trespass. The gravamen of the crime is violation of possession[16] or the fact of having caused injury to the right of the possession.[17]
	GR No. 155030 2004-05-18	PEOPLE v. ROSE YU Y FLORES YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Conspiracy is deemed to arise when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy is not presumed. Like the physical acts constituting the crime itself, the elements of conspiracy must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Conspiracy need not be established by direct evidence, for it may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime, all taken together. However, the evidence therefor must reasonably be strong enough to show a community of criminal design.[4]
	GR No. 125938 2003-04-04	PEOPLE v. JOEL JANSON QUISUMBING, J.
In People v. Javar,[39] this Court was clear in pronouncing that any statement obtained in violation of the Constitution, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, in whole or in part, shall be inadmissible in evidence. Even if the confession contains a grain of truth, if it was made without the assistance of counsel, it becomes inadmissible in evidence, regardless of the absence of coercion or even if it had been voluntarily given.[40] In People v. Gomez,[41] citing People v. Rodrigueza,[42] this Court held that Section 12(1), Article III of the Constitution requires the assistance of counsel to a person under custody even when he waives the right to counsel.
	GR No. 122112 2000-05-12	PEOPLE v. PO1 ASPALAN MAING YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Indeed, accused-appellant's alibi may be the weakest of all defenses. Nonetheless, this weakness ought not to be used as proof of his guilt. The prosecution must rest on the strength of its evidence and not rely on the weakness of the defense.[13]