This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2003-11-18 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| The circumstances recited by the trial court might be enough to create some kind of suspicion on the part of the trial court of appellant's involvement, but suspicion is not enough to warrant conviction. A finding of guilt based on conjecture, even if likely, cannot satisfy the need for evidence required for a pronouncement of guilt, i.e., proof beyond reasonable doubt of the complicity in the crime.[9] No matter how weak the defense is, it is still imperative for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence for the prosecution, it has been said, must at all times stand or fall on its own weight and it cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense.[10] An accused has the right to be presumed innocent, and this presumption prevails until and unless it is overturned by competent and credible evidence proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.[11] In case of any reservation against the guilt of accused, the Court should entertain no other alternative but to acquit him. | |||||