This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-02-16 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the appellant succeeded in inserting his fingers in AAA's vagina, this act still would not suffice to convict the appellant of rape. In 1994, the insertion of one or more fingers into a woman's vagina without her consent did not constitute rape. It was only in 1997 that the law on rape was expanded to include this act.[39] | |||||
|
2003-11-18 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Settled is the rule in criminal cases that the prosecution has the onus probandi in establishing the guilt of the accused.[9] However, where the accused admits commission of the crime but invokes self-defense, the basic rule that the burden of proving the guilt of the accused lies on the prosecution is reversed, and the burden of proof is shifted to the accused to prove the elements of his defense.[10] It then becomes incumbent upon him to rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the evidence of the prosecution, for even if the latter were weak, it could not be disbelieved after he had admitted the killing.[11] Hence, if the accused fails to discharge the burden of proof, his conviction must ensue as a matter of consequence. [12] | |||||
|
2003-10-01 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In the appreciation of evidence in criminal cases, it is a basic tenet that the prosecution has the burden of proof in establishing the guilt of the accused for the offense with which he is charged.[20] Ei incumbit probation qui dicit non qui negat, i.e., "he who asserts, not he who denies, must prove."[21] The conviction of appellant must rest not on the weakness of his defense, but on the strength of the prosecution's evidence.[22] | |||||