This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2004-04-14 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| The appellate court's formulation is wrong as the converse is the correct rule: with the existence of conspiracy, it is no longer necessary to determine who among the malefactors rendered the fatal blow;[26] whereas in the absence of conspiracy, each of the accused is responsible only for the consequences of his own acts.[27] Thus, it is necessary to determine whether a conspiracy existed between Li and Sangalang, and if there was none, to ascertain the particular acts performed by Li. | |||||
|
2002-03-20 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Conviction based merely on speculation and conjecture cannot satisfy the question of evidence required for a pronouncement of guilt, i.e. proof beyond reasonable doubt of his complicity in the crime.[6] It is incumbent upon the prosecution to establish its case with that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind, with evidence which stands or falls on its merits, and which cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. Unless it discharges the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the latter need not even offer evidence in his behalf. Thus, when the guilt of the accused has not been proven with moral certainty, such as the case at bar, it is a policy of long standing that the presumption of innocence of the accused must be favored and his exoneration be granted as a matter of right.[7] | |||||