Beyond reasonable doubt : Aquittal, This

People v leaves Us speculating as to the source of the

Valero Pipe poisoned bread.
No clear and convincing evidence sufficient to
overcome the presumption of the truth of the
recitals therein was presented by petitioners.
This is the usual order of things in society and, if
the parties are not what they hold themselves
out to be, they would be living in constant
violation of the common rules of law and
Delgado v propriety. Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio.
Rustia succession Always presume marriage.
There is no denying that in a criminal case,
unless the guilt of the accused is established by
proof beyond reasonable doubt, he is entitled
to an acquittal. But when the trial court denies
petitioners' motion to dismiss by way of
demurrer to evidence on the ground that the : If the motion to dismiss is denied, the court
prosecution had established a prima facie case should proceed to hear the evidence for the
against them, they assume a definite burden. It defence before entering judgment regardless of
becomes incumbent upon petitioners to whether or not the defense had reserved its
First, the infrmation alleges that the two accused adduce evidence to meet and nullify, if not right to present evidence in the event that its
received jewelries from Dr. Leticia C. Yap on April 19, overthrow, the prima facie case against them. 7 motion to dismiss be denied. The reason for this
1975 on consignment. The defense' contention is that This is due to the shift in the burden of is the constitutional right of the accused to be
Bautista v the jewelries were received by the said accused by evidence, and not of the burden of proof as heard in its defense before judgment is
sarmiento virtue of purchase and sale. petitioners would seem to believe. pronounced.
Abarquez v
people
Samson v
gomez
samson
 Both courts found that petitioner was not able
to prove that the instant case falls under the
excepted risks mentioned in the policy. The
police blotter did not categorically state that the
20 armed men who burned the station were
CPP/NPA members. They were only believed to
be or suspected to be members. Even Rochas, a
Radio Mindanaos radio station located in SSS policeman who testified, admitted that he was
Building, Bacolod was razed by a fire causing not sure that the said armed men were
damage in the amount of Php 1,044,040. Radio The burden of proof contemplated by the members of the CPP/NPA. The only witness who
Mindanao sought recovery under the 2 insurance provision actually refers to the burden of
testified that they were CPP/NPA members was
policies. The claims were denied on the ground evidence. As applied in the case, it refers to
Torres. However, his testimony canot be
that the cause of the loss was an excepted risk the duty of the insured to show that the loss
conclusive proof since he did not personally see
excluded in the policy. o Company claims that or damage is covered by the policy.
the fire was caused by members of the CPP/NPA. the armed men as he tried to pursue them. Also,
he was presened as an ordinary witness and not
an expert witness. Hence, his opinion on the
identity or membership of the armed men is not
admissible. With respect to Celso Magsilang,
who claims to be a member of NPA-NIROC,
being an admission of person which is not a
party to the present action, is likewise
inadmissible under Sec. 22, Rule 130.
DBP POOL
People v
arson
murica

People v DC Parricide. Vic punch and kick his wife, Anna
1. Immediately preceding the killing, Vic was
proven to have physically maltreated Anna, not
by merely slapping her as he claimed, but by
punching and kicking her.
2. Vic dragged Anna violently into the house by
her hair
3. Anna suffered injuries in different parts of her
body due to the abuse, as affirmed by Dr Virays
report
4. The location and extent of the wound
revealed the intent to kill, as the stab wound
lacerated Annas left lung, a vital organ.
5. Only Anna and Vic, aside from their young
daughter, were in the house.
6. Also, the act of carrying the body of a
wounded victim and bringing it to the hospital
does not manifest innocence, and could be a
mere act of contrition on his part.
We have already held that circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction, when the circumstances constitut
 o The evidence of the prosecution adequately
proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the
Notarion:

single room house;

lying motionless on the floor while the accused

was sitting and putting on his short pants;
Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court provides that circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: (1) there is more t

(Cabague) and the latter's relatives if he (the

witness) says anything on what he saw;

the motionless body of the victim;

rape wd homicide : Dionilo Cabague, neighbor of

accused Ricardo Notarion, arrived home with his wife (10) meters away from the house (of Cabague).
and saw that the buri leaves which served as his
People v houses lock were untied. He heard a noise inside and uneasy when he saw him that night
Notarion upon pushing the door open, saw Notarion and AAA.
(a) He passed through the shortcut to Wao
around 3 pm on Dec. 31, 1998;
Rape: lifeless body of AAA in a canal along the (b) Vicky did not see anyone else use that road
shortcut. The victim was naked except for her shorts, from 3 pm to 5 pm;
which loosely hung below her knees. Her face and left circumstantial. NONE AQUIT. o SC: these (c) The soiled garments confiscated from were
breast revealed bite marks. Soriano confessed to the circumstances do not form a solid and cohesive identified to have been the same ones he was
People v killing, having been under the influence of alcohol, but narrative that proves with moral certainty that wearing then.
soriano denied the rape. Soriano perpetrated these heinous acts.
People v
laranga hindi kay marijoy yung body trying to disprove corpus delicti

Petitioners tenant and hired laborers were
prevented from working on the subject land by
Emiliano Parulan, son of Pablo Parulan, whose heirs
SPS magno are the respondents.
Erlinda C. San Mateo ordered assorted yarns
amounting to P327,394.14 from ITSP International,
Incorporated through its VP for Operations Ravin A.
Sehwani. In partial payment, San Mateo issued 11
postdated Metrobank checks amounting to P134,275.
Whenever a check matured, however, San Mateo
would either call or write to Sehwani requesting him
not to deposit the checks due to lack of sufficient
funds. In consideration of their business relationship,
san mateo v Sehwani acceded to the request. But San Mateo
people continued to fail to settle her account.
However, the DAR's issuance of an Emancipation
Patent and the corresponding OCT covering the
contested lot carries with it a presumption of
regularity.[30] The Petition to correct/cancel
Pablo's Emancipation Patent can prosper only if
petitioners are able to present substantial
evidence that a portion of their lot was
erroneously covered by the patent. Substantial
evidence refers to such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion.[31]
As correctly held by the DARAB and the CA,
petitioners have failed to adduce substantial
evidence to establish that the contested lot was
part of their property.
The presentation of the registry card with an
unauthenticated signature, does not meet the
required proof beyond reasonable doubt that
the accused received such notice. It is not
enough for the prosecution to prove that a
notice of dishonor was sent to the accused; it
must also prove actual receipt of said notice
because the fact of service provided for in the
law is reckoned from receipt of such notice of
BP 22 aquittal dishonor by the accused.

In a prosecution for the sale and possession of
shabu (or of prohibited drugs), the State does
not only carry the heavy burden of proving the
elements of the offense. It also bears the
obligation to prove the corpus delicti, failing In
which the State would not have proved the
people v Sukarno Junaide (Junaide) was selling prohibited drugs guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
junaide at Lower Calarian, Zamboanga City D14
o SPO1 Roca testified that he marked the sachet
he bought with his initials RR. But when the
supposed sachet was presented to him in court
for identification, it instead carried the marking
RR-1.
having made a mistake and that the RR-1
marking could have been made by just anybody.

Gamboa does not deny receiving such amount.

She contends, however, that she delivered it to
Lito Jacinto, the TFS contact person in the City
ESTAFA: guilt. Rule 133, Section 2 of the Rules Hall of Manila who absconded with the money
of Court reciting constitutional mandate, exacts instead of paying it in behalf of TFS.
acquittal absent proof beyond reasonable o It must be noted that delivery to a third person
doubt. The universal test is moral certainty in by an agent of the thing entrusted to her, by
ascertaining the guilt of the accused, obtained itself, does not constitute misappropriation. BUT
Gamboa v Gamboa of her violation of company rules and only by proof which produces conviction in an WAS NOT ABLE TO PROVE HER POINT
people regulations for failing to liquidate the P247k. unprejudiced mind.

, settled is the rule that the testimony of a
single witness may be sufficient to produce a
conviction, if the same appears to be
trustworthy and reliable. If credible and
convincing, that alone would be sufficient to
convict the accused. No law or rule requires the words, her testimony on this account was, as the
People v corroboration of the testimony of a single
pareja Rape and Acts of Lasciviousness . witness in a rape case.
Parejas main bone of contention is the reliance
of the lower courts on the testimony of AAA in
convicting him for rape and acts of
lasciviousness. Simply put, Pareja is attacking the
credibility of AAA for being inconsistent.
Moreover, he claimed, AAA acted as if nothing
happened after the alleged sexual abuse. AAA
positively and consistently stated that Pareja, in
December 2003, inserted his penis into her anus.
While she may not have been certain about the
details of the February 2004 incident, she was
positive that Pareja had anal sex with her in
December 2003, thus, clearly establishing the
occurrence of rape by sexual assault. In other
Court of Appeals found, clear, positive, and
probable.50

Preponderance of evidence. Jison. he who

alleges the affirmative of the issue has the
burden of proof, and upon the plaintiff in a civil
case, the burden of proof never parts.
However, in the course of trial in a civil case,
once plaintiff makes out a prima facie case in
his favour, the duty or the burden of evidence
shifts to defendant to controvert plaintiffs
prima facie case, otherwise, a verdict must be
returned in favour of plaintiff. Moreover, in civil
cases, the party having the burden of proof
must produce a preponderance of evidence
Directos services were terminated by Vitarich without thereon, with plaintiff having to rely on the
Losins knowledge. He left without turning over some strength of his own evidence and not upon the
supporting invoices covering the orders of Losin. Rosa weakness of the defendants. The concept of We find that plaintiff-appellee Vitarich failed to
and Baybay, on the other hand, resigned on preponderance of evidence refers to evidence prove that the goods were ever delivered and
November 30, 1996 and December 30, 1996, which is of greater weight, or more convincing, received by Losin, said charge sales invoices
Vitarich v respectively. Just like Directo, they did not also turn that which is offered in opposition to it; at being undated and unsigned by Losin being the
locsin over pertinent invoices covering Losins account. bottom, it means probability of truth." consignee of the goods.
 The burden of proof was on the prosecution.
Petitioner did not even need to present
evidence. To successfully sustain a conviction,
the prosecution must rely on the strength of its
evidence, and not on the weakness of the
defense. The prosecution's evidence in this
Cruz v case was enough to overcome the presumption
people access device of innocence.
ril

Res ipsa loquitur does not create or

constitute an independent or separate ground
of liability. It is considered as merely
evidentiary or in the nature of a procedural
rule. It is regarded as a mode of proof, or a
mere procedural convenience since it furnishes
a substitute for, and relieves a plaintiff of, the
burden of producing specific proof of
negligence. In other words, mere invocation 1. The accident is of a kind which ordinarily does
and application of it does not dispense with the not occur in the absence of someones
requirement of proof of negligence. It is simply negligence;
a step in the process of such proof, permitting 2. It is caused by an instrumentality within the
the plaintiff to present along with the proof of exclusive control of the defendant or
the accident, enough of the attending defendants; and
circumstances to invoke the doctrine, creating 3. The possibility of contributing conduct which
an inference or presumption of negligence, and would make the plaintiff responsible is
to thereby place on the defendant the burden eliminated.
ramos galstone of going forward with the proof.
capili tree
consunji elevator