This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2016-02-01 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| To sustain a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court provides that the following requisites must concur: (1) there must be more than one circumstance to convict; (2) the facts on which the inference of guilt is based must be proved; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. With respect to the third requisite, it is essential that the circumstantial evidence presented must constitute an unbroken chain, which leads one to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of others, as the guilty person.[27] | |||||
|
2014-04-23 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| As found by both the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter, Sunga's injury was the result of the accidental slippage in the handling of the 200-kilogram globe valve which triggered Sunga's back pain;[18] the weight of the globe valve, coupled with the abruptness of the fall, explain why the injury was so severe as to render Sunga immobile.[19] While indeed Sunga had not explained in the request for repatriation the proximate cause of the injury, there was enough circumstantial evidence to substantiate the claim. We have held that circumstantial evidence is founded on experience, observed facts and coincidences establishing a connection between the known and proven facts and the facts sought to be proved.[20] | |||||
|
2007-02-23 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| Direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not the only matrix wherefrom a trial court may draw its conclusion and finding of guilt.[13] The rules of evidence allow a trial court to rely on circumstantial evidence to support its conclusion of guilt. Circumstantial evidence is that evidence which proves a fact or series of facts from which the facts in issue may be established by inference.[14] At times, resort to circumstantial evidence is imperative since to insist on direct testimony would, in many cases, result in setting felons free and deny proper protection to the community.[15] | |||||
|
2006-09-26 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Circumstantial evidence is that evidence which proves a fact or series of facts from which the facts in issue may be established by inference.[38] It is founded on experience and observed facts and coincidences establishing a connection between the known and proven facts and the facts sought to be proved.[39] In order to bring about a conviction, the circumstantial evidence presented must constitute an unbroken chain, which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of others, as the guilty person.[40] | |||||
|
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] | |||||
|
2004-06-14 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| Thus, for circumstantial evidence to suffice, (1) there should be more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.[57] Like an ornate tapestry created out of interwoven fibers which cannot be plucked out and assayed a strand at a time apart from the others, the circumstances proved should constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion that the accused, to the exclusion of all others, is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.[58] The test to determine whether or not the circumstantial evidence on record are sufficient to convict the accused is that the series of the circumstances proved must be consistent with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence.[59] Accordingly, we have set guidelines in appreciating circumstantial evidence: (1) it should be acted upon with caution; (2) all the essential facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt; (3) the facts must exclude every theory but that of guilt; and (4) the facts must establish such a certainty of guilt of the accused as to convince the judgment beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is the one who committed the offense.[60] | |||||
|
2002-10-15 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Certainly, it is not only by direct evidence that the accused may be convicted of the crime charged.[17] Circumstantial evidence is resorted to when direct testimony would result in setting felons free and deny proper protection to the | |||||
|
2001-12-14 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| True, conviction is not always based on direct evidence for it may also rest purely on circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is that evidence which proves a fact or series of facts from which the facts in issue may be established by inference.[10] It is founded on experience, observed facts and coincidences establishing a connection between the known and proven facts and the facts sought to be proved.[11] Conviction may be warranted on the basis of circumstantial evidence provided that: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.[12] With respect to the third requisite, it is essential that the circumstantial evidence presented must constitute an unbroken chain which leads one to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of others, as the guilty person.[13] | |||||