This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-04-11 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| We have often conceded the difficulty of proving the commission of rape when only the victim is left to testify on the circumstances of its commission. The difficulty heightens and complicates when the crime is rape with homicide, because there may usually be no living witnesses if the rape victim is herself killed. Yet, the situation is not always hopeless for the State, for the Rules of Court also allows circumstantial evidence to establish the commission of the crime as well as the identity of the culprit.[21] Direct evidence proves a fact in issue directly without any reasoning or inferences being drawn on the part of the factfinder; in contrast, circumstantial evidence indirectly proves a fact in issue, such that the factfinder must draw an inference or reason from circumstantial evidence.[22] To be clear, then, circumstantial evidence may be resorted to when to insist on direct testimony would ultimately lead to setting a felon free.[23] | |||||
|
2008-11-28 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| At the outset, we may well emphasize that direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not the only basis from which a court may draw its finding of guilt. Established facts that form a chain of circumstances can lead the mind intuitively or impel a conscious process of reasoning towards a conviction.[12] Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules on Evidence recognizes that circumstantial evidence is adequate for conviction, as follows:SEC. 4. Circumstantial evidence when sufficient. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: | |||||