This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-10-14 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In conclusion, the scant evidence for the prosecution casts serious doubts as to the guilt of petitioner as principal by inducement. It was not convincingly established, beyond reasonable doubt, that petitioner indeed ordered his men to open fire at Santos and Domingo Bawalan. The evidence offered against him in court does not pass the test of moral certainty and is insufficient to rebut the presumption of innocence that petitioner is entitled to under the Bill of Rights.[89] And where there is reasonable doubt as to the guilt of an accused, he must be acquitted even though his innocence may be questioned,[90] for it is not sufficient for the proof to establish a probability, even though strong, that the fact charged is more likely to be true than the contrary.[91] Proof beyond reasonable doubt, more than mere likelihood, requires moral certainty — a certainty that convinces and satisfies the reason and conscience of those who are to act upon it.[92] | |||||
|
2015-07-08 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In the case of rape, a review begins with the reality that rape is a very serious accusation that is painful to make; at the same time, it is a charge that is not hard to lay against another by one with malice in her mind. Because of the private nature of the crime that justifies the acceptance of the lone testimony of a credible victim to convict, it is not easy for the accused, although innocent, to disprove his guilt.[24] We are mindful that the lone testimony of the rape victim is sufficient to sustain conviction. However, the probative value of the victim's testimony should be measured against the evidence for the defense and must be carefully evaluated.[25] Thus, the court has the duty to scrutinize with caution the testimony of the victim to rule a conviction. | |||||
|
2014-06-18 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The Court is not unmindful of the general rule that the findings of the trial court regarding the credibility of witnesses are generally accorded great respect and even finality on appeal. However, this principle does not preclude a reevaluation of the evidence to determine whether material facts or circumstances have been overlooked or misinterpreted by the trial court. In the past, the Court has not hesitated to reverse judgments of conviction, where there were strong indications pointing to the possibility that the rape charge was false.[13] | |||||