Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ROLITO RABANAL v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR Nos. 186739-960 2013-04-17	LEOVEGILDO R. RUZOL v. SANDIGANBAYAN VELASCO JR., J.
Citing Rabanal v. People,[38] the Court further explained: Law and jurisprudence demand proof beyond reasonable doubt before any person may be deprived of his life, liberty, or even property. Enshrined in the Bill of Rights is the right of the petitioner to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and to overcome the presumption, nothing but proof beyond reasonable doubt must be established by the prosecution. The constitutional presumption of innocence requires courts to take "a more than casual consideration" of every circumstance of doubt proving the innocence of petitioner. (Emphasis added.)
	GR No. 178202 2010-05-14	PEOPLE v. NORMAN SITCO VELASCO JR., J.
Law and jurisprudence demand proof beyond reasonable doubt before any person may be deprived of his life, liberty, or even property. Enshrined in the Bill of Rights is the right of the petitioner to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and to overcome the presumption, nothing but proof beyond reasonable doubt must be established by the prosecution. The constitutional presumption of innocence requires courts to take "a more than casual consideration" of every circumstances or doubt proving the innocence of petitioner.[19] (Emphasis added.)
	GR No. 158897 2007-09-13	REPUBLIC v. FREDESVINDA ALMEDA CONSUNJI AZCUNA, J.
Section 1 of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court states that only questions of law are entertained in appeals by certiorari to this Court.[25] It is a well-entrenched rule that the findings of fact of the trial court and its conclusions are accorded by this Court high respect, if not conclusive effect, especially when affirmed by the appellate court. This is because of the unique advantage of the trial court of having been able to observe, at close range, the demeanor and behavior of the witnesses as they testified.[26] Furthermore, it is not the function of this Court to analyze and weigh evidence all over again, unless there is a showing that the findings of the lower court are totally devoid of support or are glaringly erroneous as to constitute palpable error or grave abuse of discretion.[27]