This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2004-06-14 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| Consequently, the case of the prosecution has been reduced to nothing but mere suspicions and speculations. It is hornbook doctrine that suspicions and speculations can never be the basis of conviction in a criminal case.[85] Courts must ensure that the conviction of the accused rests firmly on sufficient and competent evidence, and not the results of passion and prejudice.[86] If the alleged inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two (2) or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused, and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence is not adequate to support conviction.[87] The court must acquit the accused because the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is therefore insufficient to support a judgment of conviction.[88] Conviction must rest on nothing less than a moral certainty of the guilt of the accused.[89] The overriding consideration is not whether the court doubts the innocence of the accused but whether it entertains a reasonable doubt as to his guilt.[90] It is thus apropos to repeat the doctrine that an accusation is not, according to the fundamental law, synonymous with guilt the prosecution must overthrow the presumption of innocence with proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has failed to discharge its burden. Accordingly, we have to acquit. | |||||
|
2003-02-24 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The defense of alibi, like a bare denial, is weak. But the testimony of Lierma strengthens appellant's position. In any event, the prosecution has the burden to establish the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt. In the light of the testimonial evidence for the defense vis-à-vis the version of the incident presented by the prosecution, we are not convinced that the guilt of the accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The rule is clear that the guilt of the accused must be proved with moral certainty. The prosecution, on its part, must rely on the strength of its own evidence and must not simply depend on the weakness of the defense. The slightest possibility of an innocent man being convicted for an offense he has never committed, particularly where capital punishment is imposed, would be far more dreadful than letting a guilty person go unpunished for a crime he might have perpetrated.[53] Nothing less than life is at stake and any court decision authorizing the State to take life must be as error-free as possible.[54] This is a case, however, where the identity of the alleged malefactor has not been sufficiently established by evidence on record. Given the evidence before us in this review, we hold that appellant should be acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt. | |||||
|
2002-11-12 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| though his innocence may be doubted since the constitutional right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty can only be overthrown by proof beyond reasonable doubt.[22] This is not to say that accused-appellant was completely innocent. There is serious doubt as to whether or not his sexual relation with private complainant amounted to rape. In acquitting accused-appellant, we are guided by the principle that it is better to free a guilty man | |||||