Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. GREGORIO MEJIA Y VILLAFANIA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR NO. 172323 2007-01-29	PEOPLE v. JUDY SALIDAGA Y QUINTANO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The principle has been dinned into the ears of the bench and the bar that in this jurisdiction, accusation is not synonymous with guilt.[32] The proof against him must survive the test of reason; the strongest suspicion must not be permitted to sway judgment.[33] If the evidence is susceptible of two interpretations, one consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, the accused must be acquitted.[34] 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.[35] If there exists even one iota of doubt, this Court is "under a long standing injunction to resolve the doubt in favor of herein accused-petitioner."[36] The accused may offer no more than a feeble alibi but we are enjoined to proclaim him innocent in the light of insufficient evidence proving his guilt.
	GR NO. 150917 2006-09-27	ARTEMIO YADAO v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The principle has been dinned into the ears of the bench and the bar that in this jurisdiction, accusation is not synonymous with guilt.[45] The proof against him must survive the test of reason; the strongest suspicion must not be permitted to sway judgment.[46] If the evidence is susceptible of two interpretations, one consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, the accused must be acquitted.[47] 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.[48] If there exist even one iota of doubt, this Court is "under a long standing legal injunction to resolve the doubt in favor of herein accused-petitioner."[49]
	GR No. 146865 2004-02-18	PEOPLE v. ELGIN LATAYADA PANGANIBAN, J.
A The truth is that we tried to go to where the motorcycle was but we were only 10 meters away from the house of the Condinos. Q And what made you decide not to proceed? COURT: He already explain[ed] that."[28] (Italics supplied) On whether the stabbing and carnapping incident was immediately reported to the police, suffice it to state that entries in the police blotter should not be given undue significance or probative value, for these are normally incomplete and inaccurate.[29] This dictum applies to the present case with greater force, because the report was made by a truck conductor[30] who was a complete stranger to the incident.
	GR No. 116463 2003-06-10	REPUBLIC THRU DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS v. CA CARPIO, J.
Consolidation is a matter of discretion with the court. Consolidation becomes a matter of right only when the cases sought to be consolidated involve similar questions of fact and law, provided certain requirements are met. The purpose of consolidation is to avoid multiplicity of suits, prevent delay, clear congested dockets, simplify the work of the trial court, and save unnecessary expense.[12]
	GR No. 130601 2000-12-04	PEOPLE v. RAFAEL DIOPITA Y GUZMAN BELLOSILLO, J.
We are not persuaded. Suffice it to say that these are mere trifles which do not detract from complainant's straightforward and consistent identification of accused-appellant as the one who robbed and raped her. Trivial inconsistencies do not shake the pedestal upon which the complainant's credibility rests. On the contrary, they are taken as badges of truth rather than as indicia of falsehood for they manifest spontaneity and erase any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony.[23] Furthermore, entries in police blotters should not be given undue significance or probative value for they are normally incomplete and inaccurate, sometimes from either partial suggestion or want of suggestion or inquiry.[24]
	GR No. 130969 2000-02-29	PEOPLE v. ROBERTO SAN JUAN BELLOSILLO, J.
Enshrined in the Bill of Rights is the right of the accused to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and to overcome the presumption nothing but proof beyond reasonable doubt must be established by the prosecution. If the prosecution fails to discharge its burden, as in the present case, then it is not only the accused's right to be freed; it is, even more, the court's constitutional duty to acquit him.[21]