This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2011-07-05 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Contempt, too, is not presumed. In proceedings for criminal contempt, the defendant is presumed innocent and the burden is on the prosecution to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. [21] The presumption of innocence can be overcome only by proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which means proof to the satisfaction of the court and keeping in mind the presumption of innocence that precludes every reasonable hypothesis except that for which it is given. It is not sufficient for the proof to establish a probability, even though strong, that the fact charged is more likely true than the contrary. It must establish the truth of the fact to a reasonable certainty and moral certainty - a certainty that convinces and satisfies the reason and conscience of those who are to act upon it. [22] | |||||
|
2011-06-15 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Lastly, on the matter of damages, the CA reduced the award of P2 million granted by the RTC as moral damages to P100,000.00, citing the 2004 case of People v. Castillo [37] and the 2007 case of People v. Rodrigo. [38] More recent cases, [39] however, dictate that moral damages in the amount of P200,000.00 be awarded. The award of P100,000.00 as exemplary damages is sustained. | |||||
|
2007-01-23 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| We affirm the award of actual damages amounting to P1,700,000.00 representing the amount of ransom money, as well as that of moral damages of P100,000.00, conformably with jurisprudence.[49] | |||||
|
2006-01-20 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Two elements must concur before a person becomes liable as an accomplice: (1) community of design, which means that the accomplice knows of, and concurs with, the criminal design of the principal by direct participation; and (2) the performance by the accomplice of previous or simultaneous acts that are not indispensable to the commission of the crime.[18] Mere commission of an act, which aids the perpetrator, is not enough.[19] Thus:The cooperation that the law punishes is the assistance knowingly rendered, which cannot exist without the previous cognizance of the criminal act intended to be executed. It is therefore required in order to be liable as an accomplice, that the accused must unite with the criminal design of the principal by direct participation.[20] Indeed, in one case, the Court ruled that the mere presence of the accused at the crime scene cannot be interpreted to mean that he committed the crime charged.[21] | |||||
|
2006-01-20 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Every person accused has the right to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence stands as a fundamental principle of both constitutional and criminal law. Thus, the prosecution has the burden of proving every single fact establishing guilt. Every vestige of doubt having a rational basis must be removed. The defense of the accused, even if weak, is no reason to convict. Within this framework, the prosecution must prove its case beyond any hint of uncertainty. The defense need not even speak at all. The presumption of innocence is more than sufficient.[27] We apply in this case the equipoise rule. Where the evidence on an issue of fact is in issue or there is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates, the party having the burden of proof loses.[28] Hence: | |||||