This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-07-15 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The RTC's reliance on circumstantial evidence was sanctioned by Rule 133, Section 4 of the Rules of Court,[4] which requires for circumstantial evidence to warrant the conviction of an accused that, firstly, there are more than one circumstance; secondly, the facts from which the circumstances arose are duly established in court; and, thirdly, the circumstances form an unbroken chain of events leading to the fair conclusion of the culpability of the accused for the crime for which he is convicted. Ostensibly, our rules "make no distinction between direct evidence of a fact and evidence of circumstances from which the existence of a fact may be inferred. No greater degree of certainty is required when the evidence is circumstantial than when it is direct, for in either case, the trier of fact must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused."[5] | |||||
|
2012-04-11 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| We have often conceded the difficulty of proving the commission of rape when only the victim is left to testify on the circumstances of its commission. The difficulty heightens and complicates when the crime is rape with homicide, because there may usually be no living witnesses if the rape victim is herself killed. Yet, the situation is not always hopeless for the State, for the Rules of Court also allows circumstantial evidence to establish the commission of the crime as well as the identity of the culprit.[21] Direct evidence proves a fact in issue directly without any reasoning or inferences being drawn on the part of the factfinder; in contrast, circumstantial evidence indirectly proves a fact in issue, such that the factfinder must draw an inference or reason from circumstantial evidence.[22] To be clear, then, circumstantial evidence may be resorted to when to insist on direct testimony would ultimately lead to setting a felon free.[23] | |||||
|
2007-02-23 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| Direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not the only matrix wherefrom a trial court may draw its conclusion and finding of guilt.[13] The rules of evidence allow a trial court to rely on circumstantial evidence to support its conclusion of guilt. Circumstantial evidence is that evidence which proves a fact or series of facts from which the facts in issue may be established by inference.[14] At times, resort to circumstantial evidence is imperative since to insist on direct testimony would, in many cases, result in setting felons free and deny proper protection to the community.[15] | |||||