This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2004-01-26 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The guilt of an accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Before he is convicted, there should be moral certainty - a certainty that convinces and satisfies the reason and conscience of those who are to act upon it.[41] Absolute guarantee of guilt is not demanded by the law to convict a person of a criminal charge but there must, at least, be moral certainty on each element essential to constitute the offense and on the responsibility of the offender. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is meant to be that, all things given, the mind of the judge can rest at ease concerning its verdict.[42] Again, these basic postulates assume, in our view, that the court and others at the trial are able to comprehend the testimony of witnesses, particularly of the victim herself if she is presented and testified under oath. | |||||
|
2000-12-04 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Although the defense of alibi, like a bare denial, is weak, the prosecution, however, is not released from its burden to establish the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution must rely on the strength of its evidence and not on the weakness of the evidence adduced by the defense.[25] | |||||