This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2005-04-06 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| The Court's faithful adherence to the constitutional directive imposes upon it the imperative of closely scrutinizing the prosecution's evidence to assure itself that no innocent person is condemned and that conviction flows only from a moral certainty that guilt has been established by proof beyond reasonable doubt. In the words of People vs. Pascua[7]:Our findings in the case at bar should not create the mistaken impression that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses should always be looked at with askance. What we are driving at is that every accused is presumed innocent at the onset of an indictment. But, it has often happened that at the commencement of a trial, people's minds, sometimes judges too, would have already passed sentence against the accused. An allegation, or even any testimony, that an act was done should never be hastily accepted as proof that it was really done. Proof must be closely examined under the lens of a judicial microscope and only proof beyond reasonable doubt must be allowed to convict. Here, that quantum of proof has not been satisfied. | |||||