Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. CORNELIO CABUG

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 150224 2004-05-19	PEOPLE v. JOEL YATAR alias “KAWIT” PER CURIAM
The weight of the prosecution's evidence must be appreciated in light of the well-settled rule which provides that an accused can be convicted even if no eyewitness is available, as long as sufficient circumstantial evidence is presented by the prosecution to prove beyond doubt that the accused committed the crime.[17]
	GR Nos. 146235-36 2002-05-29	PEOPLE v. MELCHOR RAFAEL Y LEGASPI MENDOZA, J.
The trial court correctly held that evident premeditation, which was alleged in the information, was not established in this case. There is no proof of (a) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime; (b) an act of the accused manifestly indicating that the accused have clung to their determination; and (c) sufficient lapse of time between such determination and execution to allow them to reflect upon the consequences of their act.[36]
	GR No. 144656 2002-05-09	PEOPLE v. GERRICO VALLEJO Y SAMARTINO PER CURIAM
First. An accused can be convicted even if no eyewitness is available, provided sufficient circumstantial evidence is presented by the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime.[21] In rape with homicide, the evidence against an accused is more often than not circumstantial. This is because the nature of the crime, where only the victim and the rapist would have been present at the time of its commission, makes the prosecution of the offense particularly difficult since the victim could no longer testify against the perpetrator. Resort to circumstantial evidence is inevitable and to demand direct evidence proving the modality of the offense and the identity of the perpetrator is unreasonable.[22]
	GR No. 118073 2002-01-25	PEOPLE v. RENATO ORPILLA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PROSECUTION PROVED THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[18] Accused-appellant's former counsel explained that the reason why he did not file an Appellant's Brief was because the latter informed him that he was no longer interested in pursuing his appeal.[19] Subsequently, accused-appellant confirmed to this Court that he was indeed withdrawing his appeal.[20] Nevertheless, we are not precluded from reviewing the decision, especially since there is a need to modify accused-appellant's civil liability.[21] Hence, we resolved to deny accused-appellant's withdrawal of appeal.