This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-06-09 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Jurisprudence teaches us that "for circumstantial evidence to be sufficient to support a conviction, all circumstances must be consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent x x x."[1] Thus, conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be upheld provided that the circumstances proven constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion that points to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person.[2] | |||||
|
2013-10-09 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| (a) There is more than one circumstance; (b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Under the rule on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances shown must be consistent with each other. They should all support the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and, at the same time, be inconsistent with the hypothesis that the accused is innocent.[31] "Thus, to justify a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the combination of circumstances must be interwoven in such a way as to leave no reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused."[32] | |||||
|
2011-02-21 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We find no reason to disturb the findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA. The eyewitness account of the victim's wife is worthy of belief as it was a straight forward account consistent with the presented physical evidence. The witness had no reason to falsify and she was only interested in having the real killer punished; no motive affecting her credibility was ever imputed against her. On the other hand, the appellant failed to show by convincing evidence that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime during its commission; he was only a short 300 meters away.[10] Treachery qualified the killing to murder as the victim was asleep at the time of the assault; the victim could not have possibly defended himself against his assailant.[11] Since neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances attended the commission of the felony, the lower courts properly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua. | |||||
|
2011-02-21 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We find no reason to disturb the RTC's findings, as affirmed by the CA. The eyewitness account of Mario Makahilig is more plausible than the appellant's alibi. Positive identification, where categorical, consistent and not attended by any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitnesses, prevails over alibi and denial,[11] particularly where the appellant had not shown the physical impossibility of his access to the victim at the time and place of the crime.[12] The RTC correctly appreciated conspiracy since the simultaneous acts of the accused during the stabbing disclosed a unity of objective.[13] Treachery qualified the killing to murder. Although frontal, the attack was unexpected, and the unarmed victim was in no position to repel the attack.[14] Since neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances attended the commission of the felony, the trial court properly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua. | |||||