Search results
Section 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. - In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty.
In every criminal case, the task of the prosecution is always two-fold: (1) to prove beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime charged; and (2) to establish with the same quantum of proof the identity of the person or persons responsible therefor, because, even if the commission of the crime is a given, there can be no conviction ...
The RTC found Reynaldo Juare y Elisan (Juare) and Danilo Aguadilla y Bacalocos (Aguadilla) (collectively, accused-appellants) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Homicide punishable under Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code. The Antecedents.
This Court resolves an appeal 1 assailing the Court of Appeals Decision. 2 The Court of Appeals upheld the Regional Trial Court Decision 3 finding Alan Banding y Ulama (Banding) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Article II, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
To the contrary, absent proof by the prosecution proving beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused, such accused who pleads guilty to a capital offense, must be acquitted. (Emphasis and underscoring in the original).
This reasonable doubt standard is demanded by the due process clause of the Constitution which protects the accused from conviction except upon proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.
I. STATEMENT OF ADMITTED FACTS: "The accused individually admitted their respective official capacities as public officers at the time of the alleged commission of the offenses charged as follows: Jesus O. Typo co, Jr. - Governor; Noel D. Reyes - Officer-in-Charge, General Services Office; Aida B. Pandeagua - Buyer II, General Services Office; and.
Although it is not an element of the crime charged, conspiracy, whenever alleged, must be proved with the same quantum of evidence required to establish an element of the offense, that is, by proof beyond reasonable doubt.
A conviction in a criminal case must be supported by proof beyond reasonable doubt — moral certainty that the accused is guilty. The defense may be weak, but the prosecution is even weaker. As a result of this finding, it will be unnecessary to discuss the other issues raised.
These two proceedings involve two different standards of proof. A criminal action requires proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt while a civil action requires a lesser quantum of proof, that of preponderance of evidence.
