This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-01-30 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Generally, the factual findings of the Sandiganbayan are conclusive on this Court. However, there are established exceptions, such as when (1) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmise and conjecture; (2) the inference made is manifestly an error or founded on a mistake; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts; and (5) the findings of fact are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by evidence on record. In these instances, this Court is bound to review the facts in order to avoid a miscarriage of justice.[28] | |||||
|
2001-01-19 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| In this jurisdiction, the main consideration is not whether the Court doubts the innocence of the accused but whether it entertains a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. To justify a conviction, there must be moral certainty of guilt.[26] In this case, such moral certainty was not established for reasons we shall discuss in seriatim. | |||||