This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2007-01-29 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In highlighting the supposed weakness of appellant's defense of alibi, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals overlooked the basic question of whether the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to support their guilty verdicts for settled is the rule that in every criminal prosecution, the accused is presumed innocent until the contrary is established by the prosecution. Thus, if the prosecution fails, it fails utterly, even if the defense is weak, or indeed, even if there is no defense at all.[30] The prosecution, at all times, bears the burden of establishing an accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. No matter how weak the defense may be, it is not and cannot be the sole basis of conviction if, on the other hand, the evidence for the prosecution is even weaker.[31] | |||||