This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-03-18 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Of course, many explanations well within the realm of possibility could be offered for why Jao's attendance was not indicated in the minutes. For instance, Jao could have simply chosen to wait outside the Labor Arbiter's office, or she could have declined from having her attendance specified in the minutes. What is crucial, however, this being a criminal case, is for the prosecution to establish the guilt of an accused on the strength of its own evidence. Its case must rise on its own merits. The prosecution carries the burden of establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt; it cannot merely rest on the relative likelihood of its claims. Any lacunae in its case gives rise to doubt as regards the "fact[s] necessary to constitute the crime with which [an accused] is charged."[53] | |||||
|
2011-07-04 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Well-settled is the rule in criminal cases that the prosecution has the burden of proof to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. [14] However, once the accused admits the commission of the offense charged but raises a justifying circumstance as a defense, the burden of proof is shifted to him. He cannot rely on the weakness of the evidence for the prosecution for even if it is weak, it cannot be doubted especially after he himself has admitted the killing. [15] This is because a judicial confession constitutes evidence of a high order. | |||||