This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-07-11 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In prosecutions for arson, proof of the crime charged is complete where the evidence establishes: (1) the corpus delicti, that is, a fire caused by a criminal act; and (2) the identity of the defendants as the one responsible for the crime.[25] Corpus delicti means the substance of the crime, the fact that a crime has actually been committed.[26] This is satisfied by proof of the bare occurrence of the fire and of its having been intentionally caused.[27] | |||||
|
2011-10-12 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Obviously, the first issue raised by petitioner is purely factual in nature. It is well entrenched in this jurisdiction that factual findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any clear showing that it overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would have affected the result of the case.[16] This doctrine is premised on the undisputed fact that, since the trial court had the best opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses while on the stand, it was in a position to discern whether or not they were telling the truth.[17] Moreover, the testimony of a witness must be considered and calibrated in its entirety and not by truncated portions thereof or isolated passages therein.[18] | |||||
|
2010-03-09 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In the prosecution for arson, proof of the crime charged is complete where the evidence establishes: (1) the corpus delicti, that is, a fire because of criminal agency; and (2) the identity of the defendant as the one responsible for the crime. In arson, the corpus delicti rule is satisfied by proof of the bare fact of the fire and of it having been intentionally caused. Even the uncorroborated testimony of a single eyewitness, if credible, is enough to prove the corpus delicti and to warrant conviction.[24] | |||||