Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ELMER SALAS Y DAVID

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 169554 2009-10-28	NIEVA M. MANEBO v. SPO1 ROEL D. ACOSTA PERALTA, J.
While the initial police report stated that the name of the person who was seated beside the victim when the latter was shot was Liza Gragasan, such report would not conclusively establish that Liza Gragasan could not have been Flordeliza Bagasan, the witness who executed an affidavit four months after the incident. Notably, Flordeliza's nickname is Liza, and her surname Bagasan sounds similar to Gragasan. Under the rule of idem sonans, two names are said to be "idem sonantes" if the attentive ear finds difficulty in distinguishing them when pronounced.[32] The question whether a name sounds the same as another is not one of spelling but of pronunciation.[33] While the surname Bagasan was incorrectly written as Gragasan, when read, it has a sound similar to the surname Bagasan. Thus, the presence of Bagasan at the crime scene was established, contrary to the conclusion arrived at by the DOJ Secretary.
	GR No. 123137 2001-10-17	PEOPLE v. PO2 ALBERT ABRIOL QUISUMBING, J.
Since the sole eyewitness could not identify the gunman and his companions, the prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence from which the trial court could draw its findings and conclusion of culpability.[26] Circumstantial evidence may be relied upon, as in this case, when to insist on direct testimony would result in setting felons free.
	GR No. 123137 2001-10-17	PEOPLE v. PO2 ALBERT ABRIOL QUISUMBING, J.
Circumstantial evidence is that which indirectly proves a fact in issue. For circumstantial evidence to be sufficient to support a conviction, all the circumstances must be consistent with each other, consistent with the theory that the accused is guilty of the offense charged, and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent and with every other possible, rational hypothesis, except that of guilt.[51] An accused can be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence where all the circumstances constitute an unbroken chain leading to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the culprit.[52]
	GR No. 114917 2001-01-29	LUCIBAR ROCA Y BONDARIO v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
For the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender to be appreciated, the accused must satisfactorily comply with three requisites: (1) he has not been actually arrested; (2) he surrendered himself to a person in authority or the latter's agent; and (3) the surrender is voluntary.[23] There must be a showing of spontaneity and an intent to surrender unconditionally to the authorities, either because the accused acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to spare them the trouble and expense concomitant to his capture.[24]
	GR No. 120367 2000-10-16	PEOPLE v. ANTONIO BARRETA QUISUMBING, J.
Neither are we convinced of any alleged malicious motive on the part of the witnesses who testified against the appellants. The records are bare of any evidentiary support for such an allegation. The presumption is that no such improper motive exists and their testimonies should thereby be accorded full faith and credit.[19]
	GR No. 115985-86 2000-08-31	PEOPLE v. ALLAN JARANDILLA QUISUMBING, J.
of violence or intimidation against a person; (b) the property belongs to another; (c) the taking is characterized with animus lucrandi; and (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, the crime of homicide, which is used in the generic sense, was committed.[34] In the case at bar, Nilo Prieto testified that he saw appellant search through the pockets of Peter Paul Aldeguer as he lay unconscious. Thereafter, police investigators found the sum of around P3,000.00 on Aldeguer's body, a far cry from the P23,000.00 he had earlier won.
	GR No. 122935 2000-05-31	PEOPLE v. RODOLFO SANTOS Y ALVAREZ PARDO, J.
The failure of the prosecution to present eyewitnesses to the actual killing of Melvin does not ipso facto dispel the accused-appellants' authorship of the felony. Indeed, there are crimes where there are no eyewitnesses at all.[10] Direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not the only matrix wherefrom a trial court may draw its conclusion and finding of guilt.[11] Resort to circumstantial evidence is essential when to insist on direct testimony would result in setting felons free.[12] Conviction may be had even on circumstantial evidence provided the following requisites concur: