This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-04-05 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| It is doctrinal that the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal law does not mean such a degree of proof as to exclude the possibility of error and produce absolute certainty. Only moral certainty is required or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. [14] While it is established that nothing less than proof beyond reasonable doubt is required for a conviction, this exacting standard does not preclude resort to circumstantial evidence when direct evidence is not available. Direct evidence is not a condition sine qua non to prove the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt. For in the absence of direct evidence, the prosecution may resort to adducing circumstantial evidence to discharge its burden. Crimes are usually committed in secret and under conditions where concealment is highly probable. If direct evidence is insisted on under all circumstances, the prosecution of vicious felons who commit heinous crimes in secret or secluded places will be hard, if not impossible, to prove. [15] | |||||
|
2004-03-10 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The rules on evidence and precedents to sustain the conviction of an accused through circumstantial evidence require the presence of the following requisites: (1) there are more than one circumstance; (2) the inference must be based on proven facts; and (3) the combination of all circumstances produces a conviction beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused.[16] To justify a conviction upon circumstantial evidence, the combination of circumstances must be such as to leave no reasonable doubt in the mind as to the criminal liability of the appellant.[17] Jurisprudence requires that the circumstances must be established to form an unbroken chain of events leading to one fair reasonable conclusion pointing to the appellant, to the exclusion of all others, as the author of the crime.[18] These, the prosecution were able to establish. | |||||
|
2004-03-10 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Appellant was thus correctly convicted by the trial court of Rape with Homicide under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to R.A. 7659, which provides that when by reason or on the occasion of the rape, a homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death.[25] | |||||