This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2007-09-13 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| At the outset, we may well emphasize that direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not the only basis on which a court draws its finding of guilt, because established facts that form a chain of circumstances can lead the mind intuitively or impel a conscious process of reasoning towards a conviction.[15] Indeed, rules on evidence and principles in jurisprudence sustain the conviction of an accused through circumstantial evidence, defined as that which "indirectly proves a fact in issue through an inference which the fact-finder draws from the evidence established."[16] Resort thereto is essential when the lack of direct testimony would result in setting a felon free.[17] It is not a weaker form of evidence vis-a-vis direct evidence.[18] Cases have recognized that in its effect upon the courts, circumstantial evidence may surpass direct evidence in weight and probative force.[19] | |||||
|
2004-02-24 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Circumstantial evidence is defined as that evidence that "indirectly proves a fact in issue through an inference which the factfinder draws from the evidence established. Resort thereto is essential when the lack of direct testimony would result in setting a felon free."[16] It is not a weaker form of evidence vis-à-vis direct evidence.[17] Cases have recognized that in its effect upon the courts, the former may surpass the latter in weight and probative force.[18] | |||||
|
2002-10-15 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| community.[18] The former is not a "weaker form of evidence vis-à-vis the latter."[19] The accused may be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence, provided the proven circumstances constitute an unbroken chain leading to one fair reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person.[20] "Circumstantial evidence is akin to a tapestry; it should be made up of strands which create a pattern when interwoven."[21] This pattern should be reasonably consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and at the same time totally inconsistent with the proposition that he or she is innocent.[22] The Rules on Evidence[23] allow conviction by means of circumstantial evidence as follows: | |||||