This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-09-06 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| In amplifying the above-listed conditions, this Court has held that circumstantial evidence suffices to convict an accused only if the circumstances proven 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; the circumstances proved must be consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at the same time inconsistent with any other hypothesis except that of guilt.[29] | |||||
|
2010-07-02 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| (c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.[22] | |||||