This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-04-23 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| There is no dispute that the prosecution failed to adduce direct evidence showing that petitioner took the money mentioned in the ten informations because no one saw him in flagrante delicto, that is, in the very act of committing a crime. However, the lack or absence of direct evidence does not necessarily mean that the guilt of an accused cannot be proved by evidence other than direct evidence. Direct evidence is not the sole means of establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt since circumstantial evidence, if sufficient, can supplant its absence.[44] The crime charged may also be proved by circumstantial evidence, sometimes referred to as indirect or presumptive evidence.[45] Circumstantial evidence has been defined as that which "goes to prove a fact or series of facts other than the facts in issue, which, if proved, may tend by inference to establish a fact in issue."[46] Circumstantial evidence may be resorted to when to insist on direct testimony would ultimately lead to setting felons free.[47] | |||||