This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2009-04-16 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| While rape victims are not required or expected to remember all the details of their harrowing experience, the inconsistencies drawn from AAA's sworn statement and her declarations during trial cannot be considered as minor inconsistencies that do not affect her credibility.[67] These discrepancies are not isolated nor are they on minor details of her tale of rape. Her contradictory statements are on important details and cannot but seriously impair the probative value and cast serious doubt on the integrity of her testimony.[68] | |||||
|
2003-06-16 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The Court adheres to the rule that by the very nature of the crime of rape, the lone testimony of the complainant is enough to sustain conviction, provided that such testimony must meet the test of credibility. The testimony should not only come from the mouth of a credible witness, it should likewise be credible and reasonable in itself, candid, straightforward, and in accord with human experience.[27] Hence, the exacting standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt acquires more relevance in rape charges which are easy to make but harder to prove and harder still to defend by the party accused who may be innocent. This Court will not condemn a person if there exists the slightest hint of reasonable doubt as to his guilt.[28] | |||||
|
2002-08-22 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| prosecution to prove its case remains. Among the fundamental rights of an accused under the Bill of Rights is to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and to overcome the presumption, the prosecution must establish his guilt with proof beyond reasonable doubt.[25] Even if the accused should choose to remain silent, if the prosecution failed in discharging its burden, then it is not only the accused's right to be freed; it is, even more, the court's constitutional duty to acquit him.[26] Where it was not properly and sufficiently established beyond reasonable doubt that appellant was the one who killed the victim, as in this case, his conviction could not be lawfully sustained. His appeal should be considered favorably, and his conviction annulled. Appellant should be freed forthwith. WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pagadian City, Branch 18, is hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. Appellant LUCIO ALBERTO is ACQUITTED on the ground of insufficiency of evidence to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. His | |||||
|
2000-05-12 |
KAPUNAN, J. |
||||
| Clearly, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of accused-appellant Tomas beyond reasonable doubt Hence, this Court cannot sustain her conviction. Among the fundamental rights of an accused under our Bill of Rights is to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and to overcome the presumption, the prosecution must establish his or her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. If the prosecution fails in this, it is not only the right of the accused but also the duty of the courts to set him or her free.[75] | |||||