This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2015-06-29 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Considering all the circumstances mentioned and in light of previous rulings, we are satisfied that the evidence adduced against appellant constitutes an unbroken chain leading to the one fair and reasonable conclusion that appellant was the perpetrator of the crime. It is doctrinal that the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal law does not mean such a degree of proof as to exclude the possibility of error and produce absolute certainty. Only moral certainty is required or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.[25] This was adequately established in the case at bar. | |||||
|
2010-09-01 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| To be entitled to compensatory damages, it is necessary to prove the actual amount of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof and the best evidence obtainable to the injured party. "[R]eceipts should support claims of actual damages."[32] Thus, as correctly held by the trial court and affirmed by the CA, the amount of P14,500.00 incurred as funeral expenses can be sustained since these are expenditures supported by receipts. Also, the courts below correctly held petitioner liable to return the amount of P40,000.00 which was stolen from the gas station before the victim was shot and killed. | |||||
|
2010-07-06 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Anent the third assigned error, appellant insists that the prosecution failed to sufficiently establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged. It is doctrinal that the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal law does not mean such a degree of proof as to exclude the possibility of error and produce absolute certainty. Only moral certainty is required or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.[44] All the prosecution needs to prove, which it did, was carnal knowledge of the victim by the [appellant] against her will and without her consent and that she was sexually abused and molested through appellant's lascivious conduct.[45] [Emphasis supplied]. | |||||
|
2010-04-05 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| It is doctrinal that the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal law does not mean such a degree of proof as to exclude the possibility of error and produce absolute certainty. Only moral certainty is required or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. [14] While it is established that nothing less than proof beyond reasonable doubt is required for a conviction, this exacting standard does not preclude resort to circumstantial evidence when direct evidence is not available. Direct evidence is not a condition sine qua non to prove the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt. For in the absence of direct evidence, the prosecution may resort to adducing circumstantial evidence to discharge its burden. Crimes are usually committed in secret and under conditions where concealment is highly probable. If direct evidence is insisted on under all circumstances, the prosecution of vicious felons who commit heinous crimes in secret or secluded places will be hard, if not impossible, to prove. [15] | |||||
|
2008-08-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In rape with homicide, the evidence against the accused is usually circumstantial. The nature of the crime, in which only the victim and the rapist-killer would have been around during its commission, makes the prosecution of the offense particularly difficult because the victim could no longer testify against the perpetrator. Thus, resorting to circumstantial evidence is almost always inevitable, and to demand direct evidence to prove in such instance the modality of the offense and the identity of the perpetrator would be unreasonable.[35] | |||||
|
2004-05-20 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| In the end, the rule is settled that where the conviction of an accused hinges on the credibility of the witnesses and the veracity of their testimonies, the findings of the trial court are given a high degree of respect.[32] This is so because the assessment of the credibility of witnesses is best made by the trial court given its untrammeled opportunity to observe their demeanor on the witness stand.[33] Hence, unless some fact of weight and substance has been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted, the trial court's findings on such matters are binding and conclusive on appellate courts.[34] In this case, none of the arguments raised by appellant presents any compelling reason for the Court to disregard the evaluation of the court a quo. | |||||
|
2004-03-10 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The rules on evidence and precedents to sustain the conviction of an accused through circumstantial evidence require the presence of the following requisites: (1) there are more than one circumstance; (2) the inference must be based on proven facts; and (3) the combination of all circumstances produces a conviction beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused.[16] To justify a conviction upon circumstantial evidence, the combination of circumstances must be such as to leave no reasonable doubt in the mind as to the criminal liability of the appellant.[17] Jurisprudence requires that the circumstances must be established to form an unbroken chain of events leading to one fair reasonable conclusion pointing to the appellant, to the exclusion of all others, as the author of the crime.[18] These, the prosecution were able to establish. | |||||
|
2004-02-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| To sustain a conviction of an accused through circumstantial evidence, the following requisites must be satisfied: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) the inference must be based on proven facts; and (3) the combination of all circumstances produces a conviction beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused.[69] | |||||