This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2006-09-27 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| From the foregoing, the inevitable conclusion is that the guilt of petitioner Yadao has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The facts of the case, the autopsy reports, as well as the testimony of Dr. Llavore do not definitely establish that the assault was the proximate cause of the death of the victim. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the blow inflicted on the head of the victim resulted in an edematous condition of the brain, petitioner Yadao would still not be held liable for the death as the prosecution failed to present proof that said act was the efficient and proximate cause of the victim's demise. An acquittal based on reasonable doubt will prosper even though the accused's innocence may be doubted.[50] It is better to free a guilty man than to unjustly keep in prison one whose guilt has not been proved by the required quantum of evidence. For only when there is proof beyond any shadow of doubt that those responsible should be made answerable.[51] | |||||
|
2003-04-04 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Generally, the findings of the trial court concerning credibility of witnesses are accorded great weight and respect because it had the opportunity to observe closely in the first instance the demeanor of the witnesses presented before it.[21] However, when the trial court overlooked or misunderstood significant contrarieties in the testimony of witnesses which if considered would materially affect the result of the conviction, such findings will not bind this Court.[22] Such is the case at hand. | |||||
|
2001-09-20 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| In all criminal cases, all doubts should be resolved in favor of the accused on the principle that it is better to free a guilty man than to unjustly keep in prison one whose guilt has not been proved by the required quantum of evidence.[25] It is only when the conscience is satisfied that the crime has been committed by the person on trial that the judgment must be for conviction. For only when there is proof beyond any shadow of doubt that those responsible should be made answerable.[26] | |||||
|
2000-03-02 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| The records and evidence before us convince us to agree with accused-appellant. Before the rule that positive identification prevails over mere denial and alibi may apply, it is necessary that the credibility of the eyewitness be first put beyond question. This Court has always recognized that the trial courts are the ones best-equipped to pass upon the credibility of witnesses, having had the opportunity to observe firsthand the demeanor and actuations of the witness while on the witness stand.[16] Where the trial court itself expresses doubts on the credibility of the eyewitness and looks to other evidence to secure the conviction, we are inclined to find less believable the identification by that eyewitness. The following portions of the RTC Decision serve to illustrate this point:Doubt may indeed be entertained with respect to the identification of the five accused only by prosecution witness Honorio Cabailo. The slaying of Miguel Badenas purportedly took place at about 12 oÕclock midnight of May 4, 1994.[17] It was not a moonlit night and the only source of light were the stars. Under the circumstances, the likelihood of a wrong identification may not altogether be precluded. Such being the case, the defense of alibi may gain some credence. | |||||