This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-04-07 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Moreover, mere suspicions and speculations that the victim could have lived had petitioner stopped can never be the basis of a conviction in a criminal case.[48] The Court must be satisfied that the guilt of the accused had been proven beyond reasonable doubt.[49] Conviction must rest on nothing less than a moral certainty of the guilt of the accused. The overriding consideration is not whether the court doubts the innocence of the accused but whether it entertains doubt as to his guilt.[50] | |||||
|
2005-02-11 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| The compromise agreement which Jonathan Uy entered into with respondent was a purely private transaction which provided a resolution to a purely private controversy. In the light of the nature of the agreement and the case it settled, the constitutional right to counsel finds no application here. Section 12 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution, also known as the Bill of Rights, pertains to the rights of persons accused of committing a crime. In particular, the right to counsel is present when one is under custodial investigation for the commission of an offense.[16] It does not apply to a person who is entering into a private or civil contract or agreement. The defense of "uncounselled confession" cannot be used to invalidate such an agreement, even by analogy. We cannot countenance such a skewed interpretation of the Bill of Rights. | |||||