This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2009-10-02 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| To assay its probative value, circumstantial evidence must be tested against t=four neccessary guidelines:[37] | |||||
|
2007-03-30 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| x x x (a) It should be acted upon with caution; (b) All the essential facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt; (c) The facts must exclude every other theory but that of guilt of the accused; and, (d) The facts must establish with certainty the guilt of the accused as to convince beyond reasonable doubt that he was the perpetrator of the offense. The peculiarity of circumstantial evidence is that the series of events pointing to the commission of a felony is appreciated not singly but collectively. The guilt of the accused cannot be deduced from scrutinizing just one (1) particular piece of evidence. It is more like a puzzle which when put together reveals a convincing picture pointing to the conclusion that the accused is the author of the crime.[43] | |||||
|
2007-02-20 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Although the matter of reopening a case for reception of further evidence is largely a matter of discretion on the part of the trial court judge, this judicial action must not, however, be done whimsically, capriciously and/or unreasonably.[33] In this particular case, the prosecution was given ample opportunity to present all its witnesses but it failed to do so. The failure of the prosecution to take full advantage of the opportunities given does not change the fact that it was accorded such opportunities. Contrary to the justification stated in the April 1, 2003 Order, the prosecution was not deprived of its day in court. While it may be true that due to some confusion with the trial court's calendar, some of the trial dates assigned to the prosecution did not push through and some of the subpoenas issued to Pedrosa and/or Dr. Salen pertained to hearing dates which were different from those assigned for reception of prosecution's evidence, still the prosecution had a total of four hearing dates when it was given the chance to prove its case: May 23, June 20 and 27, and August 1, 2001. The presence of prosecution witnesses in court is the responsibility of the public prosecutor and it is incumbent upon him to take the initiative of ensuring the attendance of his witnesses at the trial.[34] | |||||
|
2004-06-28 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The trial court rendered its decision on the basis only of the evidence presented by the plaintiff, as petitioner Victor Cuñada failed to complete his testimony, and the same was properly stricken off by the lower court.[11] Petitioner Victor Cuñada failed to appear at the subsequent hearings during which he could have finished his testimony and the prosecution allowed to cross-examine him. But the direct examination could not be completed as petitioners remained overseas and the notices of hearing could not be properly served upon them. Petitioner Victor Cuñada had the duty to complete his testimony and make himself available for cross examination in accordance with fair play and due process. As his oral testimony remained incomplete, the same could not be the subject of cross-examination. It was therefore rendered incompetent and inadmissible in evidence and as such properly stricken off.[12] | |||||
|
2003-07-24 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Also, jurisprudence requires that the circumstances must be established to form an unbroken chain of events leading to one fair reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the author of the crime.[44] | |||||