This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-06-02 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In People v. Galvez,[26] we laid down the basic guidelines that judges must observe when faced with merely circumstantial evidence in deciding criminal cases. The probative value of such circumstantial evidence must be distilled using the following: Circumstantial evidence should be acted upon with caution; | |||||
|
2008-01-31 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| By parity of reasoning, the fact of respondent's conviction by the RTC does not necessarily warrant her suspension. We agree with respondent's argument that since her conviction of the crime of child abuse is currently on appeal before the CA, the same has not yet attained finality. As such, she still enjoys the constitutional presumption of innocence. It must be remembered that the existence of a presumption indicating the guilt of the accused does not in itself destroy the constitutional presumption of innocence unless the inculpating presumption, together with all the evidence, or the lack of any evidence or explanation, proves the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Until the accused's guilt is shown in this manner, the presumption of innocence continues.[39] In Mangubat v. Sandiganbayan,[40] the Court held that respondent Sandiganbayan did not act with grave abuse of discretion, correctible by certiorari, when it ruled that despite her convictions, "Preagido has still in her favor the constitutional presumption of innocence x x x (and until) a promulgation of final conviction is made, this constitutional mandate prevails." The Court therein further held that such ruling is not bereft of legal or logical foundation and cannot, in any sense, be characterized as a whimsical or capricious exercise of judgment. So also must we hold in this case. | |||||