This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2004-08-20 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| As held in several cases, when the guilt of the accused has not been proven with moral certainty, the presumption of innocence of the accused must be sustained and his exoneration be granted as a matter of right. For the prosecution's evidence must stand or fall on its own merit and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[17] Furthermore, where the evidence for the prosecution is concededly weak, even if the evidence for defense is also weak, the accused must be duly accorded the benefit of the doubt in view of the constitutional presumption of innocence that an accused enjoys. When the circumstances are capable of two or more inferences, as in this case, one of which is consistent with the presumption of innocence while the other is compatible with guilt, the presumption of innocence must prevail and the court must acquit. It is better to acquit a guilty man than to convict an innocent man.[18] | |||||
|
2003-10-23 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In rape committed through force or intimidation under Article 335, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code (as amended by Republic Act No. 7659), the prosecution must prove that force or intimidation was actually employed by the appellant upon his victim to achieve his end. Failure to do so is fatal to prosecution's cause.[10] In the instant case, the prosecution failed to establish the presence of sufficient force or intimidation that would have created a state of fear in the mind of Elsa so as to effectively prevent her from putting up a determined resistance. | |||||