Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. CHRISTOPHER DULLAVIN

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 178063 2010-04-05	PEOPLE v. TIRSO SACE Y MONTOYA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
With regard to damages, we modify the award of moral damages affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The heirs of AAA are entitled to moral damages amounting to P75,000.00, [24] pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence. Likewise, as to actual damages, we have held that if the amount of the actual damages cannot be determined because no receipts were presented to prove the same, but it was shown that the heirs are entitled thereto, temperate damages amounting to P25,000.00 may be awarded. [25] There being a sufficient showing in the instant case that the heirs of AAA incurred funeral expenses, the award of temperate damages is in order.
	GR No. 184704 2009-06-30	PEOPLE v. LEODEGARIO BASCUGIN Y AGQUIZ VELASCO JR., J.
Circumstantial evidence is that evidence which proves a fact or series of facts from which the facts in issue may be established by inference.[19] According to Rule 133, Section 4 of the Rules, circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) the inference is based on proven facts; and (3) the combination of all circumstances produces a conviction beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused. In the case at bar, the circumstantial pieces of evidence enumerated by the trial court all point to Bascugin as the perpetrator beyond reasonable doubt.
	GR No. 174658 2009-02-24	PEOPLE v. MARLON DELA CRUZ CARPIO MORALES, J.
(a) There is more than one circumstance; (b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained, provided the circumstances proven constitute an unbroken chain which lead to one fair and reasonable conclusion that points to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person.[15]
	GR No. 181493 2008-08-28	PEOPLE v. RICARDO NOTARION Y ZANORIA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not the only matrix from which a trial court may draw its conclusion and finding of guilt. The rules of evidence allow a trial court to rely on circumstantial evidence to support its conclusion of guilt. Circumstantial evidence is that evidence which proves a fact or series of facts from which the facts in issue may be established by inference.[34]
	GR No. 164266 2008-07-23	NOVER BRYAN SALVADOR Y DE LEON v. PEOPLE NACHURA, J.
Direct evidence of the crime is not the only matrix wherefrom a trial court may draw its conclusion and finding of guilt. The rules of evidence allow a trial court to rely on circumstantial evidence to support its conclusion of guilt. Circumstantial evidence is that evidence which proves a fact or series of facts from which the facts in issue may be established by inference. At times, resort to circumstantial evidence is imperative since to insist on direct testimony would, in many cases, result in setting felons free and deny proper protection to the community.[18]