This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2003-07-24 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Circumstantial evidence has been defined as that which indirectly proves a fact in issue.[43] To be sufficient for conviction, Sec. 4 of Rule 133 of the Rules of Court provides that the following requisites must concur: (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] | |||||
|
2002-06-06 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Well-taken is the prosecution's contention that, although individually, some of the circumstances seem innocuous and do not appear incriminatory,[53] when all the circumstances are taken together, especially with the circumstances of motive, flight and unusual conduct, it leads to no other conclusion but that the accused and his co-accused are guilty. The peculiarity of circumstantial evidence is that the guilt of the accused cannot be deduced from scrutinizing just one particular piece of evidence. It is more like a puzzle which, when put together, reveals a convincing picture pointing towards the inescapable conclusion that the accused is the author of the crime.[54] The foregoing evidence found by the trial court is consistent with the culpability of the accused and inconsistent with his defense of denial and alibi. | |||||
|
2001-10-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Lastly, we note that the appellants fled rather than surrender voluntarily and promptly. This fact belies their innocence and hints at their culpability. As has often been repeated, flight is a strong indication of guilt.[31] | |||||
|
2001-10-19 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| forced Ronald into the motorcycle and even rode with him towards Rizal Avenue. Third, Intoy had a gun and Ronald was found dead with gunshot wounds. Fourth, Intoy and his companions were the last persons seen with Ronald while the latter was still alive. Fifth, Intoy chose to flee and hide for six years, rather than voluntarily surrender. As repeatedly held, flight is a strong indication of guilt.[23] Appellant's act of not confronting his accuser right away goes against the principle that the first impulse of an innocent man when accused with wrongdoing is to express his innocence at the first opportune time.[24] While it is true that no witness who saw the actual killing was presented, the above enumerated circumstances are enough to prove Intoy's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Direct evidence of the commission of the crime is not the only matrix wherefrom a trial court may | |||||
|
2000-12-04 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The trial court correctly appreciated the aggravating circumstance of dwelling.[14] There was a clear violation of the sanctity of the victim's place of abode when Gloria, who apparently did not gave any provocation, was raped in her own house. Dwelling is considered an aggravating circumstance primarily because of the sanctity of privacy the law accords to human abode.[15] | |||||
|
2000-11-15 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| We hold, however, that the absence of an eyewitness makes the reliance on circumstantial evidence inevitable. Circumstantial evidence is defined as that which indirectly proves a fact in issue through an inference which the factfinder draws from the evidence established.[15] Resort thereto is essential when the lack of direct testimony would result in setting a felon free.[16] | |||||
|
2000-07-05 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| The issue is what is the quantum of circumstantial evidence that will be sufficient to convict the accused-appellants. This Court had on many occasions ruled that circumstantial evidence would suffice when, " (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt."[12] | |||||