Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ROSE AOAS Petitioner v. vs.PEOPLE

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 167567 2010-09-22	SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. BARTOLOME PUZON DEL CASTILLO, J.
"[T]he essential elements of the crime of theft are the following: (1) that there be a taking of personal property; (2) that said property belongs to another; (3) that the taking be done with intent to gain; (4) that the taking be done without the consent of the owner; and (5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against persons or force upon things."[11]
	GR No. 179033 2010-09-06	PEOPLE v. FELICIANO ANABE Y CAPILLAN CARPIO MORALES, J.
In the appreciation of circumstantial evidence, the rule is that the circumstances must be proved, and not themselves presumed. The circumstantial evidence must exclude the possibility that some other person has committed the offense charged.[37]
	GR No. 176354 2010-08-03	PEOPLE v. WILSON LOPEZ VILLARAMA, JR., J.
To uphold a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, it is essential that the circumstantial evidence presented must constitute an unbroken chain which leads one to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of the others, as the guilty person. The test to determine whether or not the circumstantial evidence on record is sufficient to convict the accused is that the series of circumstances duly proved must be consistent with each other and that each and every circumstance must be consistent with the accused's guilt and inconsistent with the accused's innocence.[20] The circumstantial evidence must exclude the possibility that some other person has committed the offense.
	GR No. 165582 2010-07-09	LUIS CHITO BUENSOCESO LOZANO v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
To sustain a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, it is essential that the circumstantial evidence presented must constitute an unbroken chain which leads one to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of the others, as the guilty person. The circumstantial evidence must exclude the possibility that some other person has committed the crime.[20]
	GR No. 179941 2009-08-24	PEOPLE v. LITO MACABARE Y LOPEZ VELASCO JR., J.
To uphold a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, it is essential that the circumstantial evidence presented must constitute an unbroken chain which leads one to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of the others, as the guilty person. Circumstantial evidence on record will be sufficient to convict the accused if it shows a series of circumstances duly proved and consistent with each other. Each and every circumstance must be consistent with the accused's guilt and inconsistent with the accused's innocence.[9] The circumstances must be proved, and not themselves presumed.[10]