This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2015-06-15 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| Indeed, physical evidence is a mute but eloquent manifestation of truth, and it ranks higher in our hierarchy of trustworthy evidence.[25] In criminal cases such as murder/homicide or rape, in which the accused stand to lose their liberty if found guilty, this Court has, on many occasions, relied principally upon physical evidence in ascertaining the truth.[26] Where the physical evidence on record runs counter to the testimonies of witnesses, the primacy of the physical evidence must be upheld.[27] | |||||
|
2002-05-29 |
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] | |||||
|
2001-12-07 |
DE LEON, JR., J. |
||||
| Costs of suit. Aggrieved by the said decision, private respondent Wingsing appealed to the Court of Appeals,[14] maintaining the necessity of declaring excess teachers, including the petitioner, during the subject school year and invoking regularity in the performance of his functions as principal of the Araullo High School. Finding merit in his argument, the appellate court on September 28, 1995 reversed the decision of the trial court and dismissed the complaint of petitioner. | |||||