Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 210760 2015-01-26	KYLE ANT ZABALA v. PEOPLE VELASCO JR., J.
To sustain a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, it is essential that the circumstantial evidence presented must constitute an unbroken chain which leads one to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of the others, as the guilty person. The circumstantial evidence must exclude the possibility that some other person has committed the crime.[19] (emphasis in the original)
	GR No. 209386 2014-12-08	MEL CARPIZO CANDELARIA v. PEOPLE PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
However, in the more recent case of Lozano v. People (Lozano),[44] the Court fixed the value of the stolen magwheels at P12,000.00 as the "reasonable allowable limit under the circumstances,"[45] notwithstanding the uncorroborated testimony of the private complainant therein. Lozano cited, among others, the case of Francisco v. People[46] (Francisco) where the Court ruled that "the trial court can only take judicial notice of the value of goods which are matters of public knowledge or are capable of unquestionable demonstration,"[47] further explaining that the value of jewelry, the stolen items in the said case, is neither a matter of public knowledge nor is it capable of unquestionable demonstration.[48]