This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2003-04-30 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| There is no dispute as to the fact that Dario did not execute an extrajudicial confession. While the extrajudicial confessions of Rolando and Rino implicated him as the person who held Salvi's head in the water, the prosecution did not present any witness to say that he actually saw him kill Salvi. Be that as it may, a confession may still be admitted against the co-accused as corroborative or circumstantial evidence.[61] | |||||
|
2001-05-31 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, mere suspicion that the disappearance of Samson Sayam was a result of accused-appellants' alleged criminal acts and intentions is insufficient to convict them. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is the required quantum of evidence.[34] An uncorroborated circumstantial evidence is certainly not sufficient for conviction when the evidence itself is in serious doubt.[35] The prosecution was not able to prove a possible motive why accused-appellants would arbitrarily detain Samson Sayam. In sum, there is no unbroken chain of circumstances leading to the conclusion that accused-appellants are guilty. Since the pieces of circumstantial evidence do not fulfill the test of moral certainty that is sufficient to support a judgment or conviction, the Court must acquit the accused.[36] | |||||