This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-10-14 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Prefatorily, this Court has consistently ruled that in the matter of credibility of witnesses, the findings of the trial court, in ordinary criminal proceedings, are given weight and respect by appellate courts and, generally, will not be disturbed on appeal. Deviation from this rule will only be allowed if there is any showing that the trial judge overlooked some material or substantial facts which, if given consideration, will alter the assailed decision.[65] So, too, this Court is not bound by the findings of the Sandiganbayan should it discover that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are marred with inconsistencies that are neither collateral nor trivial, but are material and substantial in matters determinative of petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. | |||||
|
2007-08-24 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| The presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions cannot by itself affect the constitutional presumption of innocence of the accused, particularly if the evidence for the prosecution is weak. People v. Mirantes[8] so teaches:The oft-cited presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions cannot by itself affect the constitutional presumption of innocence enjoyed by an accused, particularly when the prosecution's evidence is weak. The evidence of the prosecution must be strong enough to pierce the shield of this presumptive innocence and to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. And where the evidence of the prosecution is insufficient to overcome this presumption, necessarily, the judgment of conviction of the court a quo must be set aside. The onus probandi on the prosecution is not discharged by casting doubts upon the innocence of an accused, but by eliminating all reasonable doubts as to his guilt.[9] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) | |||||