This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2016-02-01 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The circumstantial evidence proven by the prosecution in this case failed to pass the test of moral certainty necessary to warrant Franco's conviction. Accusation is not synonymous with guilt.[66] Not only that, where the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations or interpretations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not meet or hurdle the test of moral certainty required for conviction.[67] | |||||
|
2015-09-23 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| Jurisdiction is defined as the power and authority of the courts to hear, try and decide cases. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by the Constitution or by law and by the material allegations in the complaint, regardless of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover all or some of the claims or reliefs sought therein.[42] It cannot be acquired through a waiver or enlarged by the omission of the parties or conferred by the acquiescence of the court.[43] That the employment contract of Basso was replete with references to US laws, and that it originated from and was returned to the US, do not automatically preclude our labor tribunals from exercising jurisdiction to hear and try this case. | |||||
|
2015-06-15 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Circumstantial evidence, also known as indirect or presumptive evidence,[25] consists of proof of collateral facts and circumstances from which the existence of the main fact may be inferred according to reason and common experience. It is sufficient to sustain a conviction if: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences were derived have been established; and (c) the combination of all circumstances is such as to warrant a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.[26] All the circumstances must be consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent, and with every other rational hypothesis except that of guilt.[27] In other words, a judgment of conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained when the circumstances proved form an unbroken chain that results in a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the perpetrator.[28] | |||||