Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 61 views

    People V Lara

    Uploaded by

    Lourdes Lescano
    The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Arturo Lara for robbery with homicide. While there was no direct evidence that Lara was the shooter, the Court found there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This included testimony that Lara demanded money from the vehicle at gunpoint, chased after the victim who was carrying the money bag, and six shell casings were recovered from the scene. The Court affirmed that circumstantial evidence can be sufficient on its own to overcome the presumption of innocence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People V Lara

    Uploaded by

    Lourdes Lescano
    61 views1 page
    The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Arturo Lara for robbery with homicide. While there was no direct evidence that Lara was the shooter, the Court found there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This included testimony that Lara demanded money from the vehicle at gunpoint, chased after the victim who was carrying the money bag, and six shell casings were recovered from the scene. The Court affirmed that circumstantial evidence can be sufficient on its own to overcome the presumption of innocence.

    Original Title

    People v Lara

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Arturo Lara for robbery with homicide. While there was no direct evidence that Lara was the shooter, the Court found there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This included testimony that Lara demanded money from the vehicle at gunpoint, chased after the victim who was carrying the money bag, and six shell casings were recovered from the scene. The Court affirmed that circumstantial evidence can be sufficient on its own to overcome the presumption of innocence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    61 views1 page

    People V Lara

    Uploaded by

    Lourdes Lescano
    The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Arturo Lara for robbery with homicide. While there was no direct evidence that Lara was the shooter, the Court found there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This included testimony that Lara demanded money from the vehicle at gunpoint, chased after the victim who was carrying the money bag, and six shell casings were recovered from the scene. The Court affirmed that circumstantial evidence can be sufficient on its own to overcome the presumption of innocence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    389

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. LARA


    G.R. NO. 199877
    AUGUST13, 2012

    DOCTRINE: The Judicial Affidavit Rule and the Guidelines on Pre-Trial do not totally proscribe the
    submission of additional evidence even after trial had already commenced. The submission of evidence
    beyond the mandated period in the Judicial Affidavit Rule is strictly subject to the conditions that: a) the
    court may allow the late submission of evidence only once; b) the party presenting the evidence proffers a
    valid reason for the delay; and c) the opposing party will not be prejudiced thereby.

    FACTS: Arturo Lara was arrested and charged for the crime of Robbery with Homicide for stealing San
    Sebastian Inc.’s money, in the amount of approximately Php 230,000.00, and for the death of one Joselito
    Bautista while the alleged stealing happened. When police operatives seized Lara, the latter was placed in
    a police line-up whereby Enrique Sumulong, Jeff Atie, and Virgilio Manacob identified him as the
    perpetrator of the crime.

    Before the Supreme Court he argued that he was not assisted by counsel when the police placed him in a
    line-up to be identified by the witnesses for the prosecution and he maintains that the police line-up is part
    of custodial investigation and his right to counsel had already attached.

    ISSUE: Whether there is sufficient evidence to convict Lara

    RULING: Yes, there is sufficient evidence to convict Lara.


    Contrary to appellant's assertion, prosecution witness Sumulong actually saw him shoot Bautista, the
    victim. Also, it is apparent from the assailed decision of the CA that the finding of guilt against Lara is
    based on circumstantial evidence.

    Not only direct evidence but also circumstantial evidence can overcome the presumption of innocence.
    Direct evidence of the commission of the crime is not the only matrix wherefrom a trial court may draw
    its conclusion and finding of guilt. Even in the absence of direct evidence, conviction can be had if the
    established circumstances constitute an unbroken chain, consistent with each other and to the hypothesis
    that the accused is guilty, to the exclusion of all other hypothesis that he is not.

    It is not only by direct evidence that an accused may be convicted of the crime for which he is charged.
    Resort to circumstantial evidence is essential since to insist on direct testimony would, in many cases,
    result in setting felons free and denying proper protection to the community.

    Here, the following circumstantial evidence are tellingly sufficient to prove the guilt of appellant:
     While the vehicle was at the intersection of Mercedes and Market Avenues, Pasig City, appellant
    suddenly emerged and pointed a gun at prosecution witness Sumulong, demanding from him to
    produce the bag containing the money.
     Prosecution witness Sumulong threw the bag to the victim who was then seated at the backseat of the
    vehicle.
     The victim alighted from vehicle carrying the bag
     Appellant chased and fired several shots at the victim.
     The victim sustained several gunshot wounds.
     The police officers recovered from the scene of the crime six deformed empty shells.

    You might also like