Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ROBERTO MARIANO

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 173905 2010-04-23	ANTHONY L. NG v. PEOPLE VELASCO JR., J.
While petitioner admits to his civil liability to Asiatrust, he nevertheless does not have criminal liability. It is a well-established principle that person is presumed innocent until proved guilty. To overcome the presumption, his guilt must be shown by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, we held in People v. Mariano [22] that while the principle does not connote absolute certainty, it means the degree of proof which produces moral certainty in an unprejudiced mind of the culpability of the accused. Such proof should convince and satisfy the reason and conscience of those who are to act upon it that the accused is in fact guilty. The prosecution, in this instant case, failed to rebut the constitutional innocence of petitioner and thus the latter should be acquitted.
	GR Nos. 141280-81 2003-06-16	PEOPLE v. RICKY SODSOD Y LOSITO 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]
	GR No. 139470 2001-11-29	PEOPLE v. SPO2 ANTONIO B. BENOZA BELLOSILLO, J.
We have repeatedly held that the evaluation of testimonies of witnesses by the trial court is binding upon the appellate court in the absence of a clear showing that it was reached arbitrarily or that the trial court had plainly overlooked certain circumstances of substance or value which, if considered, might affect the result of the case.[14] Verily, a thorough review of the records and transcripts of this case discloses certain circumstances which to our minds render doubtful the commission of the crime charged.