This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-02-12 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| While records show that Atienza was positively identified by Atibula as having attempted to bribe him to take out Volume 260 of the CA Original Decisions from the Reporter's Division,[85] the fact is that the alleged intercalation actually occurred in a different document, that is Volume 266. The discrepancy of accounts on the very subject matter of the crimes charged dilutes the strength of the evidence required to produce a conviction. At best, the bribery attempt may be deemed as a demonstration of interest on the part of Atienza over said subject matter and in this regard, constitutes proof of motive. However, it is well-established that mere proof of motive, no matter how strong, is not sufficient to support a conviction, most especially if there is no other reliable evidence from which it may reasonably be deduced that the accused was the malefactor.[86] | |||||
|
2003-11-18 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| "x x x. Like a tapestry made of strands which create a pattern when interwoven, a judgment of conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be upheld only if the circumstances proved constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person."[7] | |||||