This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2004-03-10 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| All these circumstances illustrate the absence of any hint of conspiracy. We also find that the prosecution failed to prove Padayhag's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In People v. Gonzales[36] we held: In the absence of conspiracy, if the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is 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. Every person accused has the right to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence stands as a fundamental principle of both constitutional and criminal law.[37] Thus, the prosecution has the burden of proving every single fact establishing guilt.[38] Every vestige of doubt having a rational basis must be removed.[39] The defense of the accused, even if weak, is no reason to convict.[40] Within this framework, the prosecution must prove its case beyond any hint of uncertainty. The defense need not even speak at all. The presumption of innocence is more than sufficient. | |||||