This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-12-14 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| On June 28, 1991, Webb's parents visited him at Anaheim and stayed with the Brottmans. On the same day, his father introduced Honesto Aragon to his son when he came to visit.[40] On the following day, June 29, Webb, in the company of his father and Aragon went to Riverside, California, to look for a car. They bought an MR2 Toyota car.[41] Later that day, a visitor at the Brottman's, Louis Whittacker, saw Webb looking at the plates of his new car.[42] To prove the purchase, Webb presented the Public Records of California Department of Motor Vehicle[43] and a car plate "LEW WEBB."[44] In using the car in the U.S., Webb even received traffic citations.[45] | |||||
|
2003-10-01 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In the appreciation of evidence in criminal cases, it is a basic tenet that the prosecution has the burden of proof in establishing the guilt of the accused for the offense with which he is charged.[20] Ei incumbit probation qui dicit non qui negat, i.e., "he who asserts, not he who denies, must prove."[21] The conviction of appellant must rest not on the weakness of his defense, but on the strength of the prosecution's evidence.[22] | |||||
|
2003-03-26 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| All told, the guilt of the accused-appellant was not proven beyond reasonable doubt measured by the required moral certainty of conviction. The evidence presented by the prosecution was not enough to overcome the presumption of innocence as constitutionally ordained. Indeed, 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.[26] Moreover, as Justice Holmes declared: "I think it is a less evil that some criminals should escape than that the government should play an ignoble part."[27] | |||||