This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-02-25 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| On the other hand, the RTC was not convinced with the explanation of the defense. It noted that their account of the events was seemingly unusual and incredible.[40] Besides, the defense of consensual copulation was belatedly invoked and seemed to have been a last ditch effort to avoid culpability. The accused never mentioned about the same at the pre-trial stage. The trial court only came to know about it when it was their turn to take the witness stand, catching the court by surprise.[41] More importantly, it must be emphasized that when the accused in a rape case claims that the sexual intercourse between him and the complainant was consensual, as in this case, the burden of evidence shifts to him, such that he is now enjoined to adduce sufficient evidence to prove the relationship. Being an affirmative defense that needs convincing proof, it must be established with sufficient evidence that the intercourse was indeed consensual.[42] Generally, the burden of proof is upon the prosecution to establish each and every element of the crime and that it is the accused who is responsible for its commission. This is because in criminal cases, conviction must rest on a moral certainty of guilt.[43] Burden of evidence is that logical necessity which rests on a party at any particular time during the trial to create a prima facie case in his favor or to overthrow one when created against him. A prima facie case arises when the party having the burden of proof has produced evidence sufficient to support a finding and adjudication for him of the issue in litigation.[44] However, when the accused alleges consensual sexual congress, he needs convincing proof such as love notes, mementos, and credible witnesses attesting to the romantic or sexual relationship between the offender and his supposed victim. Having admitted to carnal knowledge of the complainant, the burden now shifts to the accused to prove his defense by substantial evidence.[45] | |||||
|
2013-09-04 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| In order to constitute estafa under this statutory provision, the act of postdating or issuing a check in payment of an obligation must be the efficient cause of the defraudation. This means that the offender must be able to obtain money or property from the offended party by reason of the issuance of the check, whether dated or postdated. In other words, the Prosecution must show that the person to whom the check was delivered would not have parted with his money or property were it not for the issuance of the check by the offender.[25] | |||||
|
2007-02-06 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| For conspiracy to exist, the participants must agree to the commission of the felony and decide to commit it, which agreement may be deduced from the mode and manner of the commission of the offense or inferred from the acts that point to joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of intent. x x x.[76] While conspiracy need not be established by direct evidence, it is, nonetheless, required that it be proved by clear and convincing evidence by showing a series of acts done by each of the accused in concert and in pursuance of the common unlawful purpose.[77] | |||||
|
2004-12-17 |
DAVIDE JR., CJ. |
||||
| In criminal cases, conviction must rest on a moral certainty of guilt.[35] The burden of proof is upon the prosecution to establish each and every element of the crime and that the accused is either responsible for its commission or has conspired with the malefactor. Since no conspiracy was proved, the acquittal of petitioner Teresita Teves is, therefore, in order. | |||||