This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2012-03-21 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Every circumstance favoring the accused's innocence must be duly taken into account. The proof against the accused must survive the test of reason. Strongest suspicion must not be permitted to sway judgment. The conscience must be satisfied that on the accused could be laid the responsibility for the offense charged. If the prosecution fails to discharge the burden, then it is not only the accused's right to be freed; it is, even more, the court's constitutional duty to acquit him.[1] | |||||
|
2010-01-19 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| Further, Aleman asserts that he was lacking in education and so he did not fully realize the consequences of a confession. But as the CA said, no law or jurisprudence requires the police officer to ascertain the educational attainment of the accused. All that is needed is an effective communication between the interrogator and the suspect to the end that the latter is able to understand his rights.[11] This appears to have been done in this case. | |||||
|
2009-04-16 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| A second plus for the defense is the evidence of denial that it adduced. The evidence was straight forward and needed no elaborate analysis to understand. Three boys were enjoying life on their own, conversing and drinking under the shade of a mango tree, when two girls came and joined them. One girl has had several drinks before she came and indicated signs of being tipsy. This much was undisputed. At the time they were drinking, the family of the owner of the house were at the premises, and the father even asked the group to break up after some time. Thus, the group did and that would have ended that happy afternoon except for the accusation of rape that subsequently followed. Under these facts, it is not hard to resolve, given the shaky contrary tale of the prosecution, that a simple denial is all that is needed for a verdict of acquittal on grounds of reasonable doubt. We thus confirm once more what we said in People v. Muleta:[71] | |||||
|
2008-03-03 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The removal of the partition wall in the mezzanine is also of no moment. Petitioner admitted that she removed the partition wall in September 1992 because she intended to use the space to sell coffee.[19] Notably, the partition was removed much earlier than the date of the alleged commission of the crime in October 1992, and it would simply be conjectural to suppose that this was part of petitioner's alleged scheme to stash away the sacks of beans. There should be more proof presented to show petitioner's alleged complicity in the crime. Conviction must rest on the strength of the evidence for the prosecution and not on the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[20] | |||||
|
2000-02-29 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Our criminal justice system stresses that the overriding consideration in a case is not whether the court doubts the innocence of the accused, but whether it entertains reasonable doubt as to his guilt.[53] Where the pieces of evidence against the appellant are insufficient to determine guilt with moral certainty, the appellant is entitled to an acquittal.[54] | |||||