This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2009-07-20 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Circumstantial evidence may be resorted to when to insist on direct testimony would ultimately lead to setting felons free.[31] The standard that should be observed by the courts in appreciating circumstantial evidence was extensively discussed in the case of People of the Philippines v. Modesto, et al.[32] thus: . . . No general rule can be laid down as to the quantity of circumstantial evidence which in any case will suffice. All the circumstances proved 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, and with every other rational hypothesis except that of guilt. | |||||