Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. LITO LIMPANGOG

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 174369 2012-06-20	PEOPLE v. ZAFRA MARAORAO Y MACABALANG VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In every criminal prosecution, the State must prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime charged and the complicity or participation of the accused.[22] While a lone witness' testimony is sufficient to convict an accused in certain instances, the testimony must be clear, consistent, and credible qualities we cannot ascribe to this case. Jurisprudence is consistent that for testimonial evidence to be believed, it must both come from a credible witness and be credible in itself tested by human experience, observation, common knowledge and accepted conduct that has evolved through the years.[23] Clearly from the foregoing, the prosecution failed to establish by proof beyond reasonable doubt that appellant was indeed in possession of shabu, and that he freely and consciously possessed the same.
	GR No. 149588 2010-08-16	FRANCISCO R. LLAMAS v. CA NACHURA, J.
In every criminal prosecution, the State must prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime charged and the complicity or participation of the accused.[10]
	GR NO. 157221 2007-03-30	PEOPLE v. CESAR GALVEZ AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
When a crime is committed, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the identity of the perpetrator of the crime beyond reasonable doubt for there can be no conviction even if the commission of the crime is established.[62] Indeed, the State, aside from showing the existence of a crime, has the burden of correctly identifying the author of such crime.[63] Both facts must be proved by the State beyond reasonable doubt on the strength of its evidence and without solace from the weakness of the defense.[64]