What is the test for establishing that evidence of possession of property stolen during a burglary is sufficient to convict a defendant of the crime?

In People v. Mendoza (2000) 24 Cal.4th 130, the defendant argued that evidence of his possession of property taken during two commercial burglaries was insufficient to support his burglary convictions. (Id. at p. 175.) The court concluded that evidence that the defendant was seen with the property the day of the burglaries and that he had told the police he had " 'been to Chinatown' "the area where the burglarized businesses were locatedwas "adequate corroborating evidence" of his guilt such that, along with the fact that he was in possession of the recently stolen property upon arrest, a jury could reasonably infer that he committed the burglaries. (Id. at pp. 175-176.)