This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-11-26 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| It needs no elaboration that in criminal litigation, the evidence of the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the defense.[66] "[T]he burden of proof rests on the [S]tate. The accused, if he so chooses, need not present evidence. He merely has to raise a reasonable doubt and whittle away from the case of the prosecution. The constitutional presumption of innocence demands no less,"[67] even as it also demands no less than a moral certainty of his guilt.[68] | |||||
|
2004-01-21 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| It is a basic evidentiary rule in criminal law that the prosecution has the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.[20] If the prosecution fails to discharge that burden, the accused need not present any evidence.[21] Thus, for utter lack of evidence against the six appellants, their acquittal is in order. | |||||