Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

TERESITA ALCANTARA VERGARA v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 176609 2008-12-18	FERNANDO ESTABAS MAHAWAN v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Petitioner's reliance on the equipoise rule is misplaced. Under the equipoise rule, where the evidence on an issue of fact is in equipoise (evenly balanced), or there is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates, the party having the burden of proof loses.[47] The equipoise rule finds application if the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations -- one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other with his guilt -- in which case the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction.[48]
	GR No. 149858 2007-09-05	FRANCISCO M. BAX v. PEOPLE SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
It is settled that factual findings of the trial court are accorded great weight, even finality on appeal, except when it has failed to appreciate certain facts and circumstances which, if taken into account, would materially affect the result of the case. This exception is present here.[5]
	GR NO. 164358 2006-12-20	THERESA MACALALAG v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 was not intended to shelter or favor nor encourage users of the banking system to enrich themselves through the manipulation and circumvention of the noble purpose and objectives of the law.[11] Such manipulation is manifest when payees of checks issued as security for loans present such checks for payment even after the payment of such loans.
	GR NO. 164171 2006-02-20	EXECUTIVE SECRETARY v. SOUTHWING HEAVY INDUSTRIES YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
[42] Vergara v. People, G.R. No. 160328, February 4, 2005, 450 SCRA 495, 508.
	GR NO. 150762 2006-01-20	THIRD DIVISION COVERDALE ABARQUEZ v. PEOPLE CARPIO, J.
xxx The equipoise rule finds application if, as in this case, the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, for then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty, and does not suffice to produce a conviction. Briefly stated, the needed quantum of proof to convict the accused of the crime charged is found lacking.[29] WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. We SET ASIDE the 23 June 2000 Decision and 7 November 2001 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 21450, which affirmed the 30 September 1997 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 50 in Criminal Cases Nos. 94-135055-56. We ACQUIT Coverdale Abarquez y Evangelista as an accomplice in the crime of homicide in Criminal Case No. 94-135055. No pronouncement as to costs.