This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2011-09-07 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Proximate cause has been defined as "that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred."[21] | |||||
|
2009-04-21 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Even so, proof of breach of duty on the part of the attending physician is insufficient, for there must be a causal connection between said breach and the resulting injury sustained by the patient. Put in another way, in order that there may be a recovery for an injury, it must be shown that the "injury for which recovery is sought must be the legitimate consequence of the wrong done; the connection between the negligence and the injury must be a direct and natural sequence of events, unbroken by intervening efficient causes";[81] that is, the negligence must be the proximate cause of the injury. And the proximate cause of an injury is that cause, which, in the natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.[82] | |||||
|
2009-04-07 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| occurred.[41] In order to establish a motorist's liability for the negligent operation of a vehicle, it must be shown that there was a direct causal connection between such negligence and the injuries or damages complained of. Thus, negligence that is not a substantial contributing factor in the causation of the accident is not the proximate cause of an injury.[42] | |||||
|
2008-09-29 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| There was no suppression of evidence by the prosecution when it did not present Dennis as one of its witnesses. The prosecutor has the exclusive prerogative to determine the witnesses to be presented for the prosecution. If the prosecution has several eyewitnesses, as in the instant case, the prosecutor need not present all of them but only as many as may be needed to meet the quantum of proof necessary to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Besides, there is no showing that the witness who was not presented in court was not available to the accused. We reiterate the rule that the adverse presumption from a suppression of evidence is not applicable when (1) the suppression is not willful; (2) the evidence suppressed or withheld is merely corroborative or cumulative; (3) the evidence is at the disposal of both parties; and (4) the suppression is an exercise of a privilege.[21] Moreover, if Angeles believed that the failure to present Dennis was because his testimony would be unfavorable to the prosecution, Angeles should have compelled Dennis' appearance by compulsory process to testify as his own witness or even as a hostile witness. | |||||
|
2007-09-21 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The Constitution demands that every accused be presumed innocent until the charge is proved. Before an accused can be convicted of any criminal act, his guilt must first be proved beyond reasonable doubt.[31] In this jurisdiction, proof beyond reasonable doubt requires only a moral certainty or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind; it does not demand absolute certainty and the exclusion of all possibility of error;[32] it is that engendered by an investigation of the whole proof and an inability, after such investigation, to let the mind rest easy upon the certainty of guilt.[33] Basic is the principle in criminal law, that, the evidence presented must be sufficient to prove the corpus delicti - the body or substance of the crime and, in its primary sense, refers to the fact that a crime has been actually committed.[34] The corpus delicti is a compound fact composed of two things: 1) the existence of a certain act or result forming the basis of the criminal charge, and 2) the existence of a criminal agency as the cause of this act or result.[35] In all criminal prosecutions, the burden is on the prosecution to prove the body or substance of the crime. In the case at bar, was the prosecution able to prove the two components of the corpus delicti? | |||||
|
2007-07-27 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| Admittedly, an accused in a criminal case may only be convicted if his or her guilt is established by proof beyond reasonable doubt. But proof beyond reasonable doubt requires only a moral certainty or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind; it does not demand absolute certainty and the exclusion of all possibility of error.[12] | |||||
|
2007-07-04 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| As to the failure of the prosecution to present AAA's uncle CCC and to proffer a plausible explanation therefor, a prosecutor has the discretion, the prerogative to determine the witnesses he is going to present.[35] | |||||
|
2006-09-27 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The Constitution demands that every accused be presumed innocent until the charge is proved. Before an accused can be convicted of any criminal act, his guilt must first be proved beyond reasonable doubt.[26] In this jurisdiction, proof beyond reasonable doubt requires only a moral certainty or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind; it does not demand absolute certainty and the exclusion of all possibility of error;[27] it is that engendered by an investigation of the whole proof and an inability, after such investigation, to let the mind rest easy upon the certainty of guilt.[28] | |||||