This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2006-07-12 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The Supreme Court accords, as a general rule, conclusiveness to a lower court's findings of fact except when: (1) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmise and conjecture; (2) the inference made is manifestly an error or founded on a mistake; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts; and (5) the findings of fact are premised on a want of evidence and/or contradicted by evidence on record.[14] Especially in criminal cases where the accused stands to lose his liberty by virtue of his conviction, the Court must be satisfied that the factual findings and conclusions of the lower courts leading to his conviction must satisfy the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.[15] | |||||
|
2005-10-25 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| The general rule is that the factual findings of the Sandiganbayan are conclusive upon the Supreme Court.[40] After reviewing the records of these cases, we are convinced that the Sandiganbayan's finding is sufficiently rested on the evidence presented by the prosecution to implicate Garcia as a conspirator for the crime charged in the Amended Information. | |||||
|
2000-11-29 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Considering the evidence on record, we find that the Sandiganbayan convicted petitioner on probabilities and conjecture, not on hard facts duly established.[17] We are thus justified to re-examine, as we do, the evidence. | |||||
|
2000-08-16 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| have aggravated the situation that resulted in his commission of acts that may be grounds of an administrative cases.[51] However, under the facts established by the prosecution in these cases, the acts attributed to petitioner may not be the foundation of a successful criminal prosecution. The evidence presented did not provide moral certainty that petitioner committed the eleven (11) counts of falsification of public document charged. In view of the foregoing, the presumption is that petitioner Ponciano Layug is innocent. Such presumption continues until his guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt.[52] Verily, although the evidence for the defense may be weak, criminal conviction must | |||||