This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2009-10-27 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Quite apart from the foregoing issue raised by Estarija, the question that comes to the fore, as made evident by the proceedings below, is whether or not Estarija correctly filed his appeal with the Court of Appeals; or put differently, whether the Court of Appeals had appellate jurisdiction over the RTC decision convicting Estarija of the charge. Although not assigned as an error, said issue can be entertained by the Court, since, in a criminal proceeding, an appeal throws the whole case open for review, and it becomes the duty of the Court to correct any error in the appealed judgment, whether it is made the subject of an assignment of error or not.[7] | |||||
|
2009-06-18 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Finally, since Venancia hired a private prosecutor to prosecute her case, an award of attorney's fees in the amount of P10,000.00 is in order. Under Article 2208(11) of the Civil Code, attorney's fees can be awarded where the court deems it just and equitable that attorney's fees and expenses of litigation should be recovered.[45] | |||||
|
2006-12-06 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Circumstantial evidence to be sufficient for purposes of conviction must have the following elements: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and, (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.[20] The circumstances proved should constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion which points to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person. From all the circumstances, there should be a combination of evidence which in the ordinary and natural course of things, leaves no room for reasonable doubt as to his guilt.[21] | |||||
|
2006-05-03 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Direct evidence of the commission of the crime is not the only matrix from which a trial court may draw its conclusion and finding of guilt. Even in the absence of direct evidence, conviction is proper if the established factual circumstances constitute an unbroken chain and are consistent with each other and with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, to the exclusion of any other hypothesis that he is not.[39] | |||||
|
2006-04-18 |
PANGANIBAN, CJ |
||||
| "Anent the failure of the investigators to conduct a paraffin test on petitioner, this Court has time and again held that such failure is not fatal to the case of the prosecution as scientific experts agree that the paraffin test is extremely unreliable and it is not conclusive as to an accused's complicity in the crime committed."[66] Finally, as regards petitioner's alibi, we need not belabor the point. It was easily, and correctly, dismissed by the CA thus:"[Petitioner's] alibi is utterly untenable. For alibi to prosper, it must be shown that it was physically impossible for the accused to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. Here, the locus criminis was only several meters away from [petitioner's] home. In any event, this defense cannot be given credence in the face of the credible and positive identification made by Ernita."[67] | |||||
|
2006-04-18 |
PANGANIBAN, CJ |
||||
| An appeal in a criminal proceeding throws the whole case open for review. It then becomes the duty of this Court to correct any error in the appealed judgment, whether or not included in the assignment of error.[68] The CA upheld the RTC in the latter's award of damages, with the modification that unearned income be added. | |||||