This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2007-07-30 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| It is incredible that accused Nomer Ocampo and Elmer Mirand[a] have not done anything when their companion Danilo Cruz was in a fight with complainant. The least they could do was to pacify the two protagonists yet, they did not do this and they proceeded to go to their respective way home as if nothing has happened. If indeed the incident happened so fast and that the accused Danilo Cruz and complainant Rommel Misayah separated immediately after that "sudden strangling" of each other" [sic], the least that Ocampo and Miranda could do [sic] was to wait and ask Cruz what happened. Yet, again, they did not do this. x x x x[43] Evidence, to be believed, must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but must be credible in itself, such that the common experience and observation of mankind can show it as probable under the circumstances.[44] And, the best test of the credibility of a testimony is its compatibility with human knowledge, observation and common experience of man.[45] Whatever is repugnant to these standards becomes incredible and lies outside of judicial cognizance.[46] | |||||
|
2004-06-14 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| The rules of evidence allow the courts to rely on circumstantial evidence to support its conclusion of guilt.[51] It may be the basis of a conviction so long as the combination of all the circumstances proven produces a logical conclusion which suffices to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.[52] All the circumstances must be consistent with each other, consistent with the theory that all the accused are guilty of the offense charged, and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that they are innocent and with every other possible, rational hypothesis except that of guilt.[53] The evidence must exclude each and every hypothesis which may be consistent with their innocence.[54] Also, it should be acted on and weighed with great caution.[55] Circumstantial evidence which has not been adequately established, much less corroborated, cannot by itself be the basis of conviction.[56] | |||||
|
2002-01-25 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Circumstantial evidence is considered sufficient when the facts from which the inferences are derived are themselves duly proved.[24] In the case at bar, the prosecution has established accused-appellant's culpability through the aforementioned circumstances. Those circumstances taken together lead to no other conclusion than that he is guilty. | |||||
|
2001-12-11 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Doctrinally, where "the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction."[17] | |||||