This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2012-01-30 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The prosecution must prove that the petitioner had knowledge of the existence and presence of the drugs in the place under his control and dominion and the character of the drugs.[35] With the prosecution's failure to prove that the nipa hut was under petitioner's control and dominion, there casts a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. In considering a criminal case, it is critical to start with the law's own starting perspective on the status of the accused - in all criminal prosecutions, he is presumed innocent of the charge laid unless the contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt.[36] Proof beyond reasonable doubt, or that quantum of proof sufficient to produce a moral certainty that would convince and satisfy the conscience of those who act in judgment, is indispensable to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence.[37] | |||||
|
2008-10-15 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In considering a criminal case, it is critical to start with the law's own starting perspective on the status of the accused - in all criminal prosecutions, he is presumed innocent of the charge laid unless the contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt.[18] Thus, while the charge was laid after a preliminary finding that a probable cause existed showing that a crime had been committed and the accused was probably guilty thereof, the criminal trial itself starts with the substantive presumption of the innocence on the part of the accused, rebuttable only by proof of his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of such proof rests with the prosecution which must rely on the strength of its case rather than on the weakness of the case for the defense. Proof beyond reasonable doubt, or that quantum of proof sufficient to produce a moral certainty that would convince and satisfy the conscience of those who act in judgment, is indispensable to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence.[19] | |||||
|
2003-04-24 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Under our adversarial system, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. That burden must be discharged on the strength of its own evidence, without relying on the weakness of the defense. Proof beyond reasonable doubt, or that quantum of proof sufficient to produce a moral certainty that would convince and satisfy the conscience of those who are to act in judgment, is indispensable to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence.[53] | |||||
|
2002-11-12 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| and satisfy the conscience of those who are to act in judgment.[19] To be sure, it is the primordial duty of the prosecution to present its side with clarity and persuasion, so that conviction becomes the only logical and inevitable conclusion. What is required of it is to justify the conviction of the accused with moral certainty.[20] Upon the prosecution's failure to meet this test, acquittal becomes the constitutional duty of the Court, lest its mind be tortured with the thought that it has imprisoned an innocent man for the rest of his life.[21] | |||||