This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2002-01-25 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| However, we disagree with the trial court that treachery attended the commission of the crime. The trial court based this finding on the testimony of defense witness Charlene Bulan. While finding that her testimony was negative and self-serving, at the same time the trial court stated that the same testimony "established the cold- blooded manner in which Reynal Bravo was slain."[28] The rule in criminal cases is that the burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the essential elements of the offense with which the accused is charged. It must do so on the strength of its own evidence and not merely rely on the weakness of the defense.[29] | |||||
|
2000-02-09 |
DE LEON, JR., J. |
||||
| Defense witness Arvie Entila's testimony, coupled with the aforementioned circumstances, has engendered in the mind of this Court a nagging doubt as to the guilt of the appellant. This uneasiness has been spawned by the failure of the prosecution to convince this Court of appellant's guilt to that degree of moral certitude that is indispensable for the conviction of an accused. Hence, we have held in a long line of cases that if the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction.[52] | |||||