This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2012-08-06 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Clearly, taking into consideration the evidence presented by the prosecution, this Court finds that doubt naturally arises as to the guilt of the appellant and where two conflicting probabilities arise from the evidence; the one compatible with the presumption of innocence will be adopted.[25] It is better to set a guilty man free than to imprison an innocent man.[26] | |||||
|
2010-08-03 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| An acquittal based on reasonable doubt will prosper even though the accused's innocence may be doubted, for a criminal conviction rests on the strength of the evidence of the prosecution and not on the weakness of the defense. And, if the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two (2) or more explanations, one (1) of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction. That which is favorable to the accused should be considered.[38] After all, mas vale que queden sin castigar diez reos presuntos, que se castigue uno inocente.[39] Courts should be guided by the principle that it would be better to set free ten (10) men who might be probably guilty of the crime charged than to convict one (1) innocent man for a crime he did not commit.[40] | |||||
|
2006-06-27 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| It is quite taxing for the Court to reconcile petitioner's actuation of not immediately abandoning her supposed victim, but instead laying said victim on a mat and even giving a pillow for her head, with a finding of guilt for the crime charged. It is rather unthinkable why petitioner would even call the attention of a potential eyewitness by seeking the latter's assistance in lifting the body of her supposed victim onto a mat, when the natural instinct of a person who has just committed wrong is to avoid being noticed by anyone in the vicinity of the crime scene. Non-flight may not necessarily indicate innocence, but under the circumstances obtaining in the present case, the Court recognizes the fact that while the guilty flees even as no one pursues him, the innocent remains as brave and steadfast as a lion.[12] This raises reasonable doubt as to whether petitioner indeed committed the crime charged. | |||||
|
2004-06-08 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Time and again we have been guided by the principle that it would be better to set free ten men who might be probably guilty of the crime charged than to convict one innocent man for a crime he did not commit.[28] There being no conspiracy, only Antonio Comadre must answer for the crime. | |||||