This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2004-02-11 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In criminal cases, the burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused. It must do so on the strength of its own evidence and not merely rely on the weakness of the defense.[37] In this case, while defense evidence merely consisted of denial and alibi, we find that the prosecution also failed to overturn the constitutional presumption of appellants' innocence. | |||||
|
2002-12-17 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| author of the crime to the exclusion of all others.[4] The rules on evidence and jurisprudence sustain the conviction of an accused through circumstantial evidence when the following requisites concur: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) the inference must be based on proven facts; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.[5] The circumstances proved by the prosecution and relied upon by the trial court to convict accused-appellant clearly satisfied the foregoing requirements. First, the victim, accused appellant and others were together having a drinking spree on the day the mauling | |||||
|
2002-09-24 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| are only made to sign them. Certain discrepancies between declarations made in the affidavit and those made at the witness stand seldom discredit the declarant.[19] To be sure, even without the testimony of Joselito Esmeña, the testimony of Bernardo Palacio is sufficient to convict the accused. Accused-appellant's defense of alibi fails to overthrow the straightforward accounts of the credible prosecution eyewitnesses and his positive identification as the perpetrator of the murder of Marcial Dio. We agree with the trial court that the defense of alibi is inherently | |||||