This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2002-01-25 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| To warrant a conviction, direct evidence is not always required. Conviction can be had on the basis of circumstantial evidence if the established circumstances constitute an unbroken chain leading to a fair and reasonable conclusion proving that the appellant is the author of the crime to the exclusion of all others.[9] Section 4, Rule 133 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if the following requisites are complied with: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proved; and, (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstances relied upon by the trial court to convict accused-appellant clearly satisfied the foregoing requirements. | |||||
|
2000-03-07 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| For circumstantial evidence to be sufficient to support a conviction, [9] all the circumstances must be consistent with each other, consistent with the theory that the accused is guilty of the offense charged, and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent and with every other possible, rational hypothesis excepting that of guilt. [10] All the circumstances established must constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one and fair and reasonable conclusion pointing solely to the accused, to the exclusion of all other persons, as the author of the crime. [11] The facts and circumstances consistent with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence can constitute evidence which, in weight and probative value, may be deemed to surpass even direct evidence in its effect on the court. [12] | |||||