This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2001-10-17 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Circumstantial evidence is that which indirectly proves a fact in issue. For circumstantial evidence to be sufficient to support a conviction, all the circumstances must be consistent with each other, consistent with the theory that the accused is guilty of the offense charged, and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent and with every other possible, rational hypothesis, except that of guilt.[51] An accused can be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence where all the circumstances constitute an unbroken chain leading to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the culprit.[52] | |||||