This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2003-04-24 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In this case, it is difficult to affirm the trial court's judgment of conviction which, to our mind, is based on little regard for the issues raised by the defense, and on a bare declaration that the guilt of the appellants has been proved. One's conscience rebels against doubtful imposition of death and other grave penalties without moral certainty as to the guilt of the accused. Where the evidence for the prosecution is concededly weak, even if the evidence for defense is also weak, the accused must be duly accorded the benefit of the doubt in view of the constitutional presumption of innocence that an accused enjoys.[54] When the circumstances are capable of two or more inferences, as in this case, one of which is consistent with the presumption of innocence while the other is compatible with guilt, the presumption of innocence must prevail and the court must acquit. As sagely said, it is better to acquit a guilty man than to convict an innocent man.[55] | |||||
|
2002-02-13 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In the case at bar, we cannot rest easy in affirming the court a quo's judgment of conviction which, to our mind, is based on a sweeping disregard of the issues raised by the defense, and on a bare declaration that the guilt of herein accused-appellants has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. When the circumstances are capable of two or more inferences, as in the instant case, one of which is consistent with the presumption of innocence while the other is compatible with guilt, the presumption of innocence must prevail and the court must acquit. For it is better to acquit a guilty man than to convict an innocent man.[40] | |||||
|
2001-12-05 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Succinctly stated, accused-appellant's tale is too riddled with loopholes to be believed. The Court has consistently held that to be credible, testimonial evidence should not only come from the mouth of a credible witness but it should also be credible, reasonable and in accord with human experience.[43] Verily - | |||||
|
2001-08-20 |
BUENA, J. |
||||
| In sum, accused-appellant's appeal hinges on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. The trial court found the eyewitness account to be spontaneous, consistent and credible.[17] Time and again, we have ruled that appellate courts will generally not disturb the assessment of the trial court on matters of credibility, considering that the latter was in a better position to appreciate the same, having heard and observed the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment, as well as their manner of testifying, during the trial.[18] We see no reason to depart from the well-entrenched doctrine that findings of facts of the lower court are accorded due respect and weight unless it has overlooked material and relevant points that would have led it to rule otherwise.[19] Accused-appellant's conviction was grounded on the strength of the evidence of the prosecution positively establishing his presence at the scene of the crime and identifying him as the one who fired the fatal shots. It is true that the prosecution witnesses are friends of the deceased. Even so, other witnesses, who are relatives and friends of the deceased, would not just indiscriminately impute the crime to anybody but would necessarily identify and seek the conviction of the real culprit to attain justice.[20] Relationship by itself does not give rise to the presumption of bias or ulterior motive, nor does it ipso facto impair the credibility or tarnish the testimony of the witness.[21] No ill motive was attributed to these witnesses that could make them falsely testify against accused-appellant. | |||||