This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2016-02-01 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| It must be emphasized that "[c]ourts must judge the guilt or innocence of the accused based on facts and not on mere conjectures, presumptions, or suspicions."[45] It is iniquitous to base Franco's guilt on the presumptions of the prosecution's witnesses for the Court has, time and again, declared that if the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more interpretations, one of which being consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other or others consistent with his guilt, then the evidence in view of the constitutional presumption of innocence has not fulfilled the test of moral certainty and is thus insufficient to support a conviction.[46] | |||||
|
2014-11-26 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| It is well-settled, to the point of being elementary, that when inculpatory facts are susceptible to two or more interpretations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused, the evidence does not fulfill or hurdle the test of moral certainty required for conviction.[61] A forced application of the res gestae exception below results if the Court says that AAA's incriminatory statements were spontaneous and thus part of a startling occurrence. It produces an outright denial of the right of the accused-appellant to be presumed innocent unless proven guilty, not to mention that he was also denied his right to confront the complainant. As the Court held in People v. Ganguso:[62] | |||||
|
2009-08-24 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Macabare claims also that the rebuttable presumption that official duty has been regularly performed cannot by itself prevail over the presumption of innocence that an accused enjoys. This claim is valid to a point. Indeed, the constitutional presumption of innocence assumes primacy over the presumption of regularity.[14] We cannot, however, apply this principle to the instant case. The circumstantial evidence imputing animus posidendi to Macabare over the prohibited substance found in his kubol coupled with the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions constitutes proof of guilt of Macabare beyond a reasonable doubt. More so, the defense failed to present clear and convincing evidence that the police officers did not properly perform their duty or that they were inspired by an improper motive[15] in falsely imputing a serious crime to Macabare.[16] | |||||
|
2004-03-10 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| A criminal conviction must stand on the strength of the evidence presented by the prosecution, and not on the weakness of the defense of the accused. The prosecution should have done more to establish Padayhag's guilt. Instead, the prosecution left a lot of room for other possible scenarios besides her guilt. This is a fatal error. The presumption of innocence imposes a rule of evidence, a degree of proof that demands no less than total compliance. As we explained in United States v. Reyes:[42] The presumption of innocence can be overborne only by proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which means proof, to the satisfaction of the court and keeping in mind the presumption of innocence, as precludes every reasonable hypothesis except that which it is given to support. It is not sufficient for the proof to establish a probability, even though strong, that the fact charged is more likely true than the contrary. It must establish the truth of the fact to a reasonable and moral certainty- a certainty that convinces and satisfies the reason and conscience of those who are to act upon it. (Emphasis supplied) On the other hand, we find Padayhag's explanation sufficiently supported by circumstances aside from Castillo's testimony. Padayhag's acts before, during and after the crime all point to the conclusion that she was no more than an unwitting tool of Castillo. Castillo misled her into a meeting. Castillo again misled her into fetching Rocky. Castillo never met or contacted her after the day of Rocky's abduction. Castillo also testified that she did not bring Padayhag along with her when she went to Obando on the day that coincided with the "pay-off." The only circumstance linking Padayhag to that event is the shaky account of two police officers who admitted that their quarry inexplicably disappeared before their very eyes. Even the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, by itself, cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence.[43] Nothing links Padayhag to the demand for ransom. She never received any part of the ransom, precisely because she did not even know it existed. | |||||