Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ERNESTO FRANCISCO Y SPENOCILLA v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 205180 2013-11-11	RYAN VIRAY v. PEOPLE VELASCO JR., J.
Lastly, We delete the order for the reparation of the stolen property. Art. 2199 of the Civil Code is clear that "one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him, as he has duly proved." Since, as aforesaid, the testimony of the private complainant is not sufficient to establish the value of the property taken, nor may the courts take judicial notice of such testimony, We cannot award the reparation of the stolen goods.[47]
	GR No. 165582 2010-07-09	LUIS CHITO BUENSOCESO LOZANO v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
Was the amount of P17,000.00 an accurate or at least a realistic estimate of the value of these items? The Court does not believe so. Since there was no conclusive or definite proof relative to the value of these magwheels other than the testimony of private complainant, the Court fixes the value of the magwheels at P12,000.00. This is the reasonable allowable limit under the circumstances, following the guidelines in Francisco v. People.[28] To the Court's view, the amount is a more realistic estimate of their value. Thus, the basis of the penalty that should be imposed on petitioner and his co-accused should only be P12,000.00.
	GR NO. 160858 2006-02-28	ROLITO RABANAL v. PEOPLE TINGA, J.
Although the well-entrenched rule is that the testimony of a single witness is sufficient on which to anchor a judgment of conviction, it is required that such testimony must be credible and reliable.[18]