This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-09-04 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| There is no question that an identification that does not preclude a reasonable possibility of mistake cannot be accorded any evidentiary force.[43] Thus, considering that the circumstances of the identification of Wagas as the person who transacted on the rice did not preclude a reasonable possibility of mistake, the proof of guilt did not measure up to the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt demanded in criminal cases. Perforce, the accused's constitutional right of presumption of innocence until the contrary is proved is not overcome, and he is entitled to an acquittal,[44] even though his innocence may be doubted.[45] | |||||