This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2015-06-15 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Circumstantial evidence, also known as indirect or presumptive evidence,[25] consists of proof of collateral facts and circumstances from which the existence of the main fact may be inferred according to reason and common experience. It is sufficient to sustain a conviction if: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences were derived have been established; and (c) the combination of all circumstances is such as to warrant a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.[26] All the circumstances must be consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent, and with every other rational hypothesis except that of guilt.[27] In other words, a judgment of conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained when the circumstances proved form an unbroken chain that results in a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the perpetrator.[28] | |||||
|
2015-01-12 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, assuming a situation of superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor selected or taken advantage of by him in the commission of the crime."[24] "The fact that there were two persons who attacked the victim does not per se establish that the crime was committed with abuse of superior strength, there being no proof of the relative strength of the aggressors and the victim."[25] The evidence must establish that the assailants purposely sought the advantage, or that they had the deliberate intent to use this advantage.[26] "To take advantage of superior strength means to purposely use excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked."[27] The appreciation of this aggravating circumstance depends on the age, size, and strength of the parties.[28] | |||||
|
2012-04-18 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Circumstantial evidence may prove the guilt of appellant and "justify a conviction if the following requisites concur: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt."[42] In other words, "[f]or circumstantial evidence to be sufficient to support conviction, all circumstances must be consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent, and with every other rational hypothesis except that of guilt."[43] Here, we agree with the CA that the circumstances above enumerated lead to the reasonable conclusion that appellant took amounts of money from Rebecca. | |||||
|
2010-08-09 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| "Abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, assuming a situation of superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor selected or taken advantage of by him in the commission of the crime."[20] "The fact that there were two persons who attacked the victim does not per se establish that the crime was committed with abuse of superior strength, there being no proof of the relative strength of the aggressors and the victim."[21] The evidence must establish that the assailants purposely sought the advantage, or that they had the deliberate intent to use this advantage.[22] "To take advantage of superior strength means to purposely use excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked."[23] The appreciation of this aggravating circumstance depends on the age, size, and strength of the parties.[24] | |||||
|
2009-09-18 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The prosecution is burdened to prove the essential events which constitute a compact mass of circumstantial evidence, and the proof of each being confirmed by the proof of the other, and all without exception leading by mutual support to but one conclusion: the guilt of accused for the offense charged.[40] For circumstantial evidence to be sufficient to support a conviction, all the circumstances must be consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that accused is guilty and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent, and with every other rational hypothesis except that of guilt.[41] If the prosecution adduced the requisite circumstantial evidence to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt, the burden of evidence shifts to the accused to controvert the evidence of the prosecution. | |||||
|
2009-08-14 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor/s that is plainly and obviously advantageous to the aggressor/s and purposely selected or taken advantage of to facilitate the commission of the crime.[8] Evidence must show that the assailants consciously sought the advantage,[9] or that they had the deliberate intent to use this advantage.[10] To take advantage of superior strength means to purposely use force excessively out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked.[11] The appreciation of this aggravating circumstance depends on the age, size and strength of the parties.[12] | |||||