This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-02-16 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Third, considering that AAA was an unmarried 13-year old, she would have been in unusually deep sleep in order not to feel the pain and sensation reasonably expected from the insertion of a penis into her young, vaginal canal. We are baffled how could she have slept through a consummated sexual intercourse and awakened only after its completion. While AAA alleged that she had been drugged, this state - by itself and in the absence of any other evidence - only gives rise to the possibility of a consummated act of rape; the conviction in a rape case though must rest on evidence, not on mere possibility.[40] | |||||
|
2004-06-10 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Our legal culture demands that before any person may be convicted of any crime and deprived of life, liberty or property, the requisite quantum of proof must be presented. A strong suspicion or possibility of guilt is not sufficient.[30] Correlatively, to determine the sufficiency of the evidence for the State, it is important to examine it cautiously. If it falls short of establishing moral certainty of guilt, the verdict must be one of acquittal.[31] | |||||
|
2003-10-07 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Seventh, while the general policy is for the courts not to attach any persuasive evidentiary value to the affidavit of retraction of the victim's widow, such sworn statement acquires a weightier and more decisive evidentiary consideration when taken in conjunction with the other prevailing facts in this case. Thus, it has oft been said that where inculpatory facts and circumstances are susceptible of two or more interpretations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused while the others may be compatible with a finding of guilt, the Court must acquit the accused because the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty required for conviction.[61] | |||||