Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/262250183/People-v-Eran-Decision-PD-1612
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 18:06:17+00:00

Document:
People of the Philippines, Appellee, Vs. Joseph Cajurao, Appellant.
the assistance of his counsel de parte, Atty. Ernesto A. Gonzales, Jr.
(Atty. Gonzales), pleaded not guilty to the offense charged.
losses were estimated to be around P16,000,000.00.
received a letter-complaint dated June 22, 1999 from Dae Ryung Ind.
in the theft of cargoes through skillful opening of container vans.
as porter were merely hired by a certain Kathy to unload the boxes.
thereof were faxed by them to the office of Skyfreight Forwarders, Inc.
affidavit was subscribed and sworn to before by P/C Insp. Joselito M.
Vera Cruz (P/C Insp. Vera Cruz), Deputy Chief of CIDG-DSOO.
missingare the same items which were confiscated from the accused.
1999 in the Regional Trial Court of Manila, as hereinabove mentioned.
its admission by the accused on November 12, 2002.
On December 3, 2002, the accused filed a Demurrer to Evidence.
No comment or objection thereto was counter-filed by the prosecution.
Demurrer to Evidence for lack of merit.
whether he is civilly liable therefor.
2Dizon-Pamintuan v. People, G.R. No. 111426, July 11, 1994; Tan v.
4Consulta v. People, G.R. No. 179462, February 12, 2009; Sazon v.
them to spirit away said goods.
assumption that such fact exists.
Knowledge refers to a mental state of awareness about a fact.
robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing.
10US v. Go Chico, G.R. No. L-8646, March 31, 1915; 1 Reyes, supra at p.
13Dela Torre v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 121592, July 5, 1996, citing DizonPamintuan v. People, supra.
innocent and are committed without unlawful intention.
based on the experience of human conduct [People vs.
appropriated them to his personal use [Art. 217].
accused by advancing clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.
the facts adduced by the State and the proper inferences therefrom.
which he had no one to blame but himself.
computation of the appropriate penalty ensconced in Section 3 (a), P.D.
129 of the Rules of Court).
As held by the Supreme Court in Westmont Investment Corp. v.
the trial can not be used for or against a party litigant.
Neither may it be taken into account on appeal.
offered shall be excluded and rejected.
Following the ruling of the Supreme Court in Francisco v.
was explained at length by the Supreme Court, speaking through Mr.
accordance with the rules in Article 64 of the Code.
the attendance of any modifying circumstance.
corresponding to the value of said items.
maximum period, with all the accessory penalties provided by law.

References: v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.