This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2008-03-03 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| At the outset, we must stress that while physical evidence ranks very high in our hierarchy of trustworthy evidence and can be relied upon principally to ascertain the truth,[10] presentation thereof is not absolutely indispensable to sustain a conviction. Petitioner's stance that the insufficiency of physical evidence inevitably leads to acquittal is flawed, as we have, on several occasions, sustained convictions based on purely testimonial evidence. In the same manner, guilt beyond reasonable doubt may be produced by the amalgamation of certain physical and testimonial evidence which, when taken separately, would have been insufficient to sustain a conviction. | |||||
|
2004-04-14 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| …Physical evidence is a mute but eloquent manifestation of truth, and it ranks high in our hierarchy of trustworthy evidence. In criminal cases such as murder or rape where the accused stands to lose his liberty if found guilty, this Court has, in many occasions, relied principally upon physical evidence in ascertaining the truth…[W]here the physical evidence on record ran counter to the testimonial evidence of the prosecution witnesses, we ruled that the physical evidence should prevail.[41] | |||||
|
2000-10-12 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In the present case, we note that the evidence on record does not support petitioners' contention that the deceased died from a fall from a motorcab. Testifying on her necropsy findings, Dr. Salvador declared that a blunt instrument could have caused the victim's fatal injury and this blunt instrument could have been a wooden stool, a piece of wood, or a human fist. The examining doctor's findings on the fatal injury and its most likely cause have not been rebutted successfully by petitioners. Moreover, we are guided by the rule that where the physical evidence on record runs counter to the testimony of witnesses, the primacy of the physical evidence must be upheld.[12] We are not persuaded that the victim's death was not caused by a blunt instrument but by an accidental fall, as stressed by petitioners. | |||||