This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-01-29 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In highlighting the supposed weakness of appellant's defense of alibi, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals overlooked the basic question of whether the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to support their guilty verdicts for settled is the rule that in every criminal prosecution, the accused is presumed innocent until the contrary is established by the prosecution. Thus, if the prosecution fails, it fails utterly, even if the defense is weak, or indeed, even if there is no defense at all.[30] The prosecution, at all times, bears the burden of establishing an accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. No matter how weak the defense may be, it is not and cannot be the sole basis of conviction if, on the other hand, the evidence for the prosecution is even weaker.[31] | |||||
|
2004-10-19 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Not every good or bad moral character of the offended party may be proved under this provision. Only those which would establish the probability or improbability of the offense charged. This means that the character evidence must be limited to the traits and characteristics involved in the type of offense charged.[16] Thus, on a charge of rape - character for chastity, on a charge of assault - character for peaceableness or violence, and on a charge of embezzlement - character for honesty.[17] In one rape case, where it was established that the alleged victim was morally loose and apparently uncaring about her chastity, we found the conviction of the accused doubtful.[18] | |||||