This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2012-08-13 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Indeed, in cases of robbery with homicide, the taking of personal property with intent to gain must itself be established beyond reasonable doubt. Conclusive evidence proving the physical act of asportation by the accused must be presented by the prosecution. It must be shown that the original criminal design of the culprit was robbery and the homicide was perpetrated with a view to the consummation of the robbery by reason or on the occasion of the robbery.[26] The mere presence of the accused at the crime scene is not enough to implicate him. It is essential to prove the intent to rob and the use of violence was necessary to realize such intent. | |||||
|
2009-01-20 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| We affirm with modifications. The Court notes that the basis of the trial and the appellate courts in convicting the appellant of three counts of murder is circumstantial evidence, given the absence of any direct evidence as to who actually killed the victims. Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court provides that, for the same to be sufficient for conviction, there must be more than one circumstance; the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and the combination of all circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.[20] A judgment of conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be upheld only if the circumstances proven constitute an unbroken chain leading to one fair and reasonable conclusion that the defendants are guilty, to the exclusion of any other conclusion.[21] The circumstances proved must be concordant with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and, at the same time, inconsistent with any hypothesis other than that of guilt. As a corollary to the constitutional precept that the accused is presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, a conviction based on circumstantial evidence must exclude each and every hypothesis consistent with his innocence.[22] | |||||
|
2005-08-29 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The trial court, as well as the appellate court, relied heavily on circumstantial evidence to convict the accused-petitioner. Under the Rules of Court, the requirements for circumstantial facts to be able to withstand the tribulation of a conviction of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, are: (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.[18] Decided cases expound that the circumstantial evidence presented and proved must constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person.[19] | |||||
|
2005-07-29 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The trial court, as well as the appellate court, relied heavily on circumstantial evidence to convict the accused-petitioner. Under the Rules of Court, the requirements for circumstantial facts to be able to withstand the tribulation of a conviction of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, are: (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.[18] Decided cases expound that the circumstantial evidence presented and proved must constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person.[19] | |||||
|
2004-11-25 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| In a long line of cases,[21] this Court has always applied this presumption to a situation where property has been stolen and the stolen property is found in the possession of the accused. In these cases the possession of the accused gives rise to the presumption that the accused is the taker of the stolen property. In the presumption availed of by the lower courts the property found in the possession of the accused, which is the withdrawal slip, is not stolen property. Furthermore, the presumption the lower court made was not that the petitioner stole anything, but rather that the petitioner was the maker of the withdrawal slip. It is plain that the presumption used by the lower court and the one found in paragraph (j), Section 3 of Rule 131 are different. Consequently, there is no basis for the finding that the withdrawal slip was prepared by the petitioner. | |||||
|
2004-03-10 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| The Medico-Legal Report and testimony of Dr. Ludivico J. Lagat show that Imee's hymen had deep fresh hymenal lacerations which could have been caused by a penetration of an erect penis. The injuries all over her body were inflicted by appellant as she struggled to resist his attack. Undoubtedly, the above circumstances constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion that appellant, to the exclusion of any other person, perpetrated the crime charged.[34] The sequence of events, as established by the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, negates the possibility that a person other than the appellant committed the crime. Indeed, the combination of all these circumstances, or circumstantial evidence, produces a conviction beyond reasonable doubt that appellant is guilty of rape.[35] | |||||