This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2000-03-17 |
KAPUNAN, J. |
||||
| It is well-settled that "where the circumstances shown to exist yield two (2) or more inferences, one of which is consistent with the presumption of innocence while the other or others may be compatible with the finding of guilt, the court must acquit the accused: for the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is insufficient to support a judgment of conviction."[29] In this case, the prosecution failed to present evidence to overcome the presumption of innocence accorded by the Constitution to the accused. To paraphrase an admonition expressed by the Court in an earlier case,[30] much as we share the abhorrence of the disenchanted public in regard to the proliferation of drug pushers, the Court cannot allow an individual to suffer the supreme penalty of death based on insufficient factual nexus of that person's participation in the commission of the offense.[31] | |||||