This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2007-09-21 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The Constitution demands that every accused be presumed innocent until the charge is proved. Before an accused can be convicted of any criminal act, his guilt must first be proved beyond reasonable doubt.[31] In this jurisdiction, proof beyond reasonable doubt requires only a moral certainty or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind; it does not demand absolute certainty and the exclusion of all possibility of error;[32] it is that engendered by an investigation of the whole proof and an inability, after such investigation, to let the mind rest easy upon the certainty of guilt.[33] Basic is the principle in criminal law, that, the evidence presented must be sufficient to prove the corpus delicti - the body or substance of the crime and, in its primary sense, refers to the fact that a crime has been actually committed.[34] The corpus delicti is a compound fact composed of two things: 1) the existence of a certain act or result forming the basis of the criminal charge, and 2) the existence of a criminal agency as the cause of this act or result.[35] In all criminal prosecutions, the burden is on the prosecution to prove the body or substance of the crime. In the case at bar, was the prosecution able to prove the two components of the corpus delicti? | |||||
|
2006-09-27 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The Constitution demands that every accused be presumed innocent until the charge is proved. Before an accused can be convicted of any criminal act, his guilt must first be proved beyond reasonable doubt.[26] In this jurisdiction, proof beyond reasonable doubt requires only a moral certainty or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind; it does not demand absolute certainty and the exclusion of all possibility of error;[27] it is that engendered by an investigation of the whole proof and an inability, after such investigation, to let the mind rest easy upon the certainty of guilt.[28] | |||||
|
2001-05-17 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant's admission that he had sexual relations with his housekeeper Era is indeed despicable and odious in itself; however there is no showing beyond reasonable doubt that he ravished her in the afternoon of 2 June 1988. Verily, accusation is not, according to the fundamental law, synonymous with guilt.[45] It is incumbent on the prosecution to demonstrate that culpability lies. The freedom of the accused is forfeit only if the requisite quantum of proof necessary for conviction be in existence. His guilt must be shown beyond reasonable doubt. To such a standard, this Court has always been committed. | |||||