This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-11-26 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Faced with two conflicting versions, the Court is guided by the equipoise rule.[88] Thus, where the 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.[89] The equipoise rule provides that where the evidence in a criminal case is evenly balanced, the constitutional presumption of innocence tilts the scales in favor of the accused.[90] | |||||
|
2007-04-02 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Well-entrenched is the rule that a private certification is hearsay where the person who issued the same was never presented as a witness. The same is true of letters. While hearsay evidence may be admitted because of lack of objection by the adverse party's counsel, it is nonetheless without probative value.[65] Stated differently, the declarants of written statements pertaining to disputed facts must be presented at the trial for cross-examination.[66] The lack of objection may make an incompetent evidence admissible, but admissibility of evidence should not be equated with weight of evidence. Indeed, hearsay evidence whether objected to or not has no probative value.[67] | |||||