This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2000-07-06 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Further, it does not appear appellant has a motive for killing the victim. While generally, the motive of the accused in a criminal case is immaterial and does not have to be proven, proof of the same becomes relevant and essential when, as in this case, the identity of the assailant is in question.[26] A finding of guilt must rest on the prosecution's own evidence, not on the weakness or even absence of evidence for the defense.[27] It is precisely when the prosecution's case is weak, as in this instance, that the defense of alibi assumes importance and becomes crucial in negating criminal liability.[28] Under our criminal justice system, the overriding consideration is not whether the court doubts the innocence of the accused but whether it entertains a reasonable doubt as to his guilt.[29] Here, doubt as to the identification of appellant as the guilty person has not been overcome. | |||||
|
2000-07-06 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Further, it does not appear appellant has a motive for killing the victim. While generally, the motive of the accused in a criminal case is immaterial and does not have to be proven, proof of the same becomes relevant and essential when, as in this case, the identity of the assailant is in question.[26] A finding of guilt must rest on the prosecution's own evidence, not on the weakness or even absence of evidence for the defense.[27] It is precisely when the prosecution's case is weak, as in this instance, that the defense of alibi assumes importance and becomes crucial in negating criminal liability.[28] Under our criminal justice system, the overriding consideration is not whether the court doubts the innocence of the accused but whether it entertains a reasonable doubt as to his guilt.[29] Here, doubt as to the identification of appellant as the guilty person has not been overcome. | |||||
|
2000-03-22 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| It is axiomatic that evidence to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but must also be credible in itself, such that common experience and observation of mankind lead to the inference of its probability under the circumstances.[15] Testimonies that do not adhere to this standard are necessarily accorded little weight or credence.[16] The Court finds the narration of the accused improbable and beyond belief for being contrary to human experience. He testified as follows: "Q. Tell us, inside the room what did you do? A. I peeped. | |||||