This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-07-08 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| As a final word, it is timely to reiterate People v. Mamalias,[47] where the Court has reminded with emphasis about the main objective of the courts in the dispensation of justice in criminal prosecutions: We emphasize that the great goal of our criminal law and procedure is not to send people to the gaol but to do justice. The prosecution's job is to prove that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Conviction must be based on the strength of the prosecution and not on the weakness of the defense - the obligation is upon the shoulders of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused, not on the accused to prove his innocence. Thus, when the evidence of the prosecution is not enough to sustain a conviction, it must be rejected and the accused absolved and released at once. | |||||
|
2009-08-14 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| We reiterate our ruling in People v. Mamalias:[21] | |||||
|
2007-03-30 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Even if the defense of the appellant may be weak, the same is inconsequential if, in the first place, the prosecution failed to discharge the onus of his identity and culpability.[81] Conviction must be based on the strength of the prosecution and not on the weakness of the defense, i.e., the obligation is upon the shoulders of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused and not the accused to prove his innocence.[82] The prosecution's job is to prove that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.[83] Thus, when the evidence for the prosecution is insufficient to sustain a conviction, it must be rejected and the accused absolved and released at once.[84] | |||||
|
2001-04-20 |
KAPUNAN, J. |
||||
| The trial court correctly pointed out that there is no improper motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses to testify against Nzenza,[60] and that their testimonies should be given full faith and credence since they are presumed to be in the regular performance of their official duties as police and customs officers of the NAIA.[61] However, to support a finding that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, the testimonies should not only be credible and positive, but also sufficient to establish guilt. We are mindful that in our criminal justice system, the overriding consideration is not whether the court doubts the innocence of the accused but whether it entertains a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. [62] Thus, to overcome the presumption of innocence of the accused, proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact essential to constitute the offense charged must be clearly established by the prosecution.[63] | |||||