This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-02-13 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Circumstantial as it is, conviction based thereon can be upheld, provided the circumstances proven constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion that points to accused-appellant, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person. Direct evidence of the commission of the crime is not the only matrix from which the trial court may draw its conclusions and findings of guilt. Circumstantial evidence is of a nature identical to direct evidence. It is equally direct evidence of minor facts of such a nature that the mind is led, intuitively or by a conscious process of reasoning, to a conclusion from which some other fact may be inferred. No greater degree of certainty is required when the evidence is circumstantial than when it is direct. In either case, what is required is that there be proof beyond reasonable doubt that a crime was committed and that accused-appellant committed it.[27] | |||||
|
2003-07-30 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Conformably with the observations of the trial court, appellant should indemnify the heirs of Rosario Olanda the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity.[53] As to moral damages, however, the widower Felix Olanda is not entitled to the same. He did not testify on any mental anguish or emotional distress which he suffered as a result of his wife's death.[54] No other heirs of Rosario testified in court . | |||||
|
2003-02-12 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Thus, insofar as it is favorable to herein appellant, the provisions of RA 8294 should be applied liberally and retroactively[42] in that appellant must be acquitted of the charge of illegal possession of firearms.[43] | |||||