This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-10-19 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| In the absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt as to the identity of the culprit, the accused's constitutional right to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved is not overcome, and he is entitled to an acquittal,[26] though his innocence may be doubted.[27] The constitutional presumption of innocence guaranteed to every individual is of primary importance, and the conviction of the accused must rest not on the weakness of the defense he put up but on the strength of the evidence for the Prosecution.[28] | |||||
|
2011-04-04 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The first duty of the prosecution is not to prove the crime but to prove the identity of the criminal, for, even if the commission of the crime can be established, there can be no conviction without proof of the identity of the criminal beyond reasonable doubt.[22] In that regard, an identification that does not preclude a reasonable possibility of mistake cannot be accorded any evidentiary force.[23] The intervention of any mistake or the appearance of any weakness in the identification simply means that the accused's constitutional right of presumption of innocence until the contrary is proved is not overcome, thereby warranting an acquittal,[24] even if doubt may cloud his innocence.[25] Indeed, the presumption of innocence constitutionally guaranteed to every individual is forever of primary importance, and every conviction for crime must rest on the strength of the evidence of the State, not on the weakness of the defense.[26] | |||||