Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. RAYMUNDO CORFIN

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 187497 2011-10-12	PEOPLE v. MELANIO GALO BRION, J.
In yet another case - People v. Corfin[26]- we upheld the conviction of the accused based on evidence showing that: (1) the accused was the last person seen with the victim; (2) the accused and the victim were seen together near a dry creek; (3) the accused was seen leaving the place alone; and (4) the body of the victim was later found in the dry creek.
	GR No. 189294 2011-02-21	PEOPLE v. HERMINIANO MARZAN Y OLONAN BRION, J.
Significantly, this is not the first case where we convicted the accused on a similar set of facts and based solely on circumstantial evidence. In People v. Raymundo Corfin,[15] we upheld the conviction of the accused based on evidence showing that: (1) the accused was the last person seen with the victim; (2) the accused and the victim were seen together near a dry creek; (3) the accused was seen leaving the place alone; and (4) the body of the victim was later found in the dry creek.
	GR No. 152954 2004-03-10	PEOPLE v. PAULINO SEVILLENO Y VILLANUEVA PER CURIAM
In People v. Corfin,[21] which is similar to this case, we upheld the conviction of the accused based on the following circumstances: (1) the accused was the last person seen with the victim; (2) said accused and the victim were seen together near the dry creek; (3) the accused was seen leaving said place alone; and (4) the body of the victim was found in the dry creek.
	GR No. 142532 2003-11-18	PEOPLE v. JOHNNY M. QUIZON VITUG, J.
(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." The foregoing elements must all be obtaining in order to aptly warrant the conviction of an accused. The circumstances proved must be congruous with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and inconsistent with any other hypothesis except that of guilt.[6] It must be shown (a) that there is more than one circumstance and the facts from which the inferences are derived have been firmly established and (b) that the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The Court has once said:"x x x. Like a tapestry made of strands which create a pattern when interwoven, a judgment of conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be upheld only if the circumstances proved constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person."[7]
	GR No. 126113 2003-06-25	PEOPLE v. ANTONIO GUIHAMA Y BARANDA AZCUNA, J.
In a more recent case entitled People v. Corfin,[33] we upheld the conviction of the accused based on the following circumstances: 1) the accused was the last person seen with the victim; 2) said accused and the victim were seen together near the dry creek; 3) the accused was seen leaving said place alone; and 4) the body of the victim was found in the dry creek.