Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SESINANDO MERIDA v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 205015 2014-11-19	MA. MIMIE CRESCENCIO v. PEOPLE REYES, J.
Clearly, this evidence does not suffice. The Court had ruled that in order to prove the amount of the property taken for fixing the penalty imposable against the accused under Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), the prosecution must present more than a mere uncorroborated "estimate" of such fact. In the absence of independent and reliable corroboration of such estimate, courts may either apply the minimum penalty under Article 309 or fix the value of the property taken based on the attendant circumstances of the case.[28] Hence, the lower court erred in finding that the value of the confiscated lumber is P9,040.00 for no evidence of such value was established during the trial.
	GR No. 179033 2010-09-06	PEOPLE v. FELICIANO ANABE Y CAPILLAN CARPIO MORALES, J.
Merida v. People[44] instructs that to prove the amount of the property taken for fixing the penalty imposable against the accused under Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code, the prosecution must present more than a mere uncorroborated "estimate". In the absence of independent and reliable corroboration of such estimate, the courts may either apply the minimum penalty under Article 309 or fix the value of the property taken based on the attendant circumstances of the case.
	GR No. 170589 2009-04-16	OLYMPIO REVALDO v. PEOPLE CARPIO, J.
As we have held in Merida v. People,[21] to prove the amount of the property taken for fixing the penalty imposable against the accused under Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code, the prosecution must present more than a mere uncorroborated "estimate" of such fact. In the absence of independent and reliable corroboration of such estimate, the courts may either apply the minimum penalty under Article 309 or fix the value of the property taken based on the attendant circumstances of the case.
	GR No. 184098 2008-11-25	AMADO TAOPA v. PEOPLE CORONA, J.
Section 68 of PD 705, as amended,[7] refers to Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) for the penalties to be imposed on violators. Violation of Section 68 of PD 705, as amended, is punished as qualified theft.[8] The law treats cutting, gathering, collecting and possessing timber or other forest products without license as an offense as grave as and equivalent to the felony of qualified theft.