Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. NINOY MALBOG

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 172500 2007-09-21	LILIBETH ARICHETA v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Where the inculpatory facts and circumstances are susceptible of two or more interpretations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused while the other may be compatible with the finding of guilt, the Court must acquit the accused because the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty required for conviction.[22]
	GR No. 152302 2004-06-08	PEOPLE v. JOSE OGA Y CALUNOD DAVIDE JR., CJ.
Q When he removed his shorts, was he standing or lying? A He was kneeling, sir.[17] Clear likewise in Irene's testimony were her chances of escape; yet, she did not try to. Quite telling was her placidity when the appellant was removing his shorts in preparation for the consummation of the sexual act. She was not restrained of her movements then. Her hands were not held by the appellant. She could have screamed, ran towards the exit, and kicked or pushed him. But she stayed lying down on the "papag," content in watching his next move and waiting for the inevitable. Her failure to even attempt to escape from her supposed assailant or at least to shout for help despite opportunities to do so casts doubt on her credibility and renders her claim of lack of voluntariness and consent difficult to believe.[18]
	GR No.129376 2002-05-29	PEOPLE v. ANGELITO TAN Y NUBLA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Concededly as pointed out by the lower court, the evidence of the defense has its share of inconsistencies. This, however, cannot be made to favor the cause of the prosecution. It is a well-entrenched rule in criminal law that the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own weight[74] and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense.[75] Furthermore, it is a hornbook doctrine that if inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction.[76]