This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2002-09-02 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| "fn">[6] Direct evidence of the commission of the crime is not the only matrix from which the trial court may draw its conclusions and findings of guilt. Circumstantial evidence is of a nature identical to direct evidence. It is equally direct evidence of minor facts of such a nature that the mind is led, intuitively or by a conscious process of reasoning, to a conclusion from which some other fact may be inferred. No greater degree of certainty is required when the evidence is circumstantial than when it is direct. In either case, what is required is that there be proof beyond reasonable doubt that a crime was committed and that accused-appellant committed it.[7] As noted by the Solicitor General, the evidence is replete with details to prove the fact of death of the victim and to sustain the guilt of accused-appellant, to wit: (1) accused-appellant, victim Pedrito, prosecution witnesses Fernando and Felix Bernal, and one Rey Bernal together went to Benedisco pub located at Bangued, Abra; | |||||
|
2002-07-11 |
KAPUNAN, J. |
||||
| began and developed, it cannot be established from mere supposition that the accused perpetrated the killing with treachery. Likewise in People vs. Oscar Oliva,[56] we said that absent any particulars as to the manner in which aggression was commenced or how the act which resulted in the death of the victim unfolded, treachery cannot be appreciated against accused-appellant. While it may be admitted that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself because he was driving the tricycle, there was no proof that accused-appellant consciously or purposely adopted the mode of attack employed by him. Indeed, | |||||