This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-08-31 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| We disagree. "[C]orpus delicti refers to the fact of the commission of the crime charged or to the body or substance of the crime. In its legal sense, it does not refer to the ransom money in the crime of kidnapping for ransom or to the body of the person murdered"[55] or, in this case, to the seized timber. "Since the corpus delicti is the fact of the commission of the crime, this Court has ruled that even a single witness' uncorroborated testimony, if credible, may suffice to prove it and warrant a conviction therefor. Corpus delicti may even be established by circumstantial evidence."[56] | |||||
|
2004-04-14 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Proof of corpus delicti is indispensable in prosecutions for felonies and offenses.[19] While the autopsy report of a medico legal expert in cases of murder or homicide is preferably accepted to show the extent of the injuries suffered by the victim, it is not the only competent evidence to prove the injuries and the fact of death.[20] It may be proved by the testimonies of credible witnesses. Even a single witness' uncorroborated testimony, if credible, may suffice to prove it and warrant a conviction therefor. [21] | |||||
|
2003-10-01 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| of the commission of the crime which may be proved by the testimony of the witnesses who saw it. To prove the corpus delicti, it is sufficient for the prosecution to be able to show that (1) a certain fact has been proven, and (2) a particular person is criminally responsible for the act.[80] From the evidence brought before the trial court, the name and participation of appellant Mamarion in the planning and execution of the crime of Kidnapping with Ransom consistently and persistently crop up. However, for reasons known only to himself, he chose to remain | |||||