This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2013-04-02 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| True, the CSC failed to present direct evidence proving that SJO2 Almojuela had been involved in facilitating Lao's escape. But direct evidence is not the sole means of establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt since circumstantial evidence, if sufficient, can supplant the absence of direct evideence.[70] Under Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court: SEC. 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. - Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: | |||||
|
2011-10-05 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Judge Infante's holding that circumstantial evidence of guilt was of a lesser weight than direct evidence in the establishment of guilt was also surprising. His training and experience should have cautioned him enough on the point that the lack or absence of direct evidence did not necessarily mean that the guilt of the accused could not anymore be proved, because circumstantial evidence, if sufficient, could supplant the absence of direct evidence.[22] In short, evidence of guilt was not necessarily weak because it was circumstantial. | |||||
|
2011-08-31 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Between the categorical statements of the prosecution witness, on one hand, and the bare denial of the appellant, on the other, the former must perforce prevail. An affirmative testimony is far stronger than a negative testimony especially when it comes from the mouth of a credible witness. Alibi and denial, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law. They are considered with suspicion and always received with caution, not only because they are inherently weak and unreliable but also because they are easily fabricated and concocted. [10] Denial cannot prevail over the positive testimony of prosecution witnesses who were not shown to have any ill-motive to testify against the appellant.[11] | |||||
|
2011-06-08 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Between the categorical statements of the prosecution witness, on one hand, and the bare denial of the appellant, on the other, the former must perforce prevail. An affirmative testimony is far stronger than a negative testimony especially when it comes from the mouth of a credible witness. Alibi and denial, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law. They are considered with suspicion and always received with caution, not only because they are inherently weak and unreliable but also because they are easily fabricated and concocted. [26] Denial cannot prevail over the positive testimony of prosecution witnesses who were not shown to have any ill-motive to testify against the appellants. [27] | |||||
|
2010-09-28 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| No amount of good faith can be attributed to Chulyao. Good faith necessitates honesty of intention, free from any knowledge of circumstances that ought to have prompted him to undertake an inquiry.[13] Chulyao admitted that she discovered after a week or two, from the day of examination, that she had given the picture of her sister to the proctor on July 31, 1988 and yet she did not immediately report and correct said error. When the CSC called her twice to appear before the investigation being conducted regarding the incident, Chulyao failed to appear. An innocent person caught in a like situation would more likely immediately profess his innocence rather than evade an investigation which could shed light on the controversy. A truly innocent person would normally grasp the first available opportunity to defend himself and assert his innocence.[14] Thus, Chulyao's protestation of good faith and inadvertence are too incredible to be given weight. To our mind, Chulyao acted with malicious intent to perpetrate a fraud. | |||||
|
2010-02-04 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| As to the defense of denial, the same is inherently weak. Denial is a self-serving negative evidence, which cannot be given greater weight than that of the declaration of a credible witness who testifies on affirmative matters. Like alibi, denial is an inherently weak defense, which cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Denial cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of prosecution witnesses who were not shown to have any ill motive to testify against petitioner.[18] | |||||
|
2008-03-03 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The prosecution has failed to show that the circumstances invoked completely discount the possibility that persons other than petitioner could have perpetrated the crime. Thus, where the proven facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with innocence and the other with guilt, the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to convict the accused. [21] | |||||
|
2008-01-28 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| At the outset, it may be well to emphasize that direct evidence is not the sole means of establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.[8] Established facts that form a chain of circumstances can lead the mind intuitively or impel a conscious process of reasoning towards a conviction. Indeed, rules on evidence and principles in jurisprudence have long recognized that the accused may be convicted through circumstantial evidence.[9] | |||||