This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2005-06-15 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| A year later, in People v. Janson,[25] we acquitted the accused charged with rape for lack of evidence because "doubts persist(ed) in our mind as to who (were) the real malefactors. Yes, a complex offense (had) been perpetrated but who (were) the perpetrators? How we wish we had DNA or other scientific evidence to still our doubts!" | |||||
|
2003-09-23 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Finally, while flight has been said to be an indication of guilt,[31] this alone cannot justify the conviction of appellants. The evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merit and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. In this exacting standard, the prosecution failed. It follows that the judgment of the lower court convicting appellants should be set aside for failure to meet the quantum of evidence constitutionally required.[32] | |||||
|
2003-08-25 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Appellant's claim that he was not represented by a counsel of his own choice during the taking of the extra-judicial confession, merits no consideration. The purpose of providing counsel to a person under custodial investigation is to curb the uncivilized practice of extracting confession by coercion no matter how slight, as would lead the accused to admit something false. What is sought to be avoided is the evil of extorting from the very mouth of the person undergoing interrogation for the commission of an offense, the very evidence with which to prosecute and thereafter convict him. These constitutional guarantees have been made available to protect him from the inherently coercive psychological, if not physical, atmosphere of such investigation.[11] | |||||