This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2015-08-17 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It is settled that the lack or absence of direct evidence does not necessarily mean that the guilt of the accused cannot be proved by evidence other than direct evidence. The crime charged may also be proved by circumstantial evidence,[28] sometimes referred to as indirect or presumptive evidence. Circumstantial evidence, if sufficient, can supplant the absence of direct evidence.[29] Where the court relies solely on circumstantial evidence, the combined effect of the pieces of circumstantial evidence must inexorably lead to the conclusion that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Conviction must rest on nothing less than moral certainty, whether it proceeds from direct or circumstantial evidence.[30] | |||||
|
2014-11-26 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| But if for some reason the complainant fails or refuses to testify, as in this case, then the court must consider the adequacy of the circumstantial evidence established by the prosecution. In People v. Canlas,[27] the Court said:Where the court relies solely on circumstantial evidence, the combined effect of the pieces of circumstantial evidence must inexorably lead to the conclusion that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Conviction must rest on nothing less than moral certainty, whether it proceeds from direct or circumstantial evidence.[28] | |||||
|
2014-04-07 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Moreover, assuming that robbery was indeed committed, the prosecution must establish with certitude that the killing was a mere incident to the robbery, the latter being the perpetrator's main purpose and objective. It is not enough to suppose that the purpose of the author of the homicide was to rob; a mere presumption of such fact is not sufficient.[32] Stated in a different manner, a conviction requires certitude that the robbery is the main purpose, and objective of the malefactor and the killing is merely incidental to the robbery. The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life but the killing may occur before, during or after the robbery.[33] What is crucial for a conviction for the crime of robbery with homicide is for the prosecution to firmly establish the offender's intent to take personal property before the killing, regardless of the time when the homicide is actually carried out.[34] In this case, there was no showing of the appellant's intention, determined by their acts prior to, contemporaneous with, and subsequent to the commission of the crime, to commit robbery.[35] No shred of evidence is on record that could support the conclusion that appellant's primary motive was to rob Januario and that he was able to accomplish it.[36] Mere speculation and probabilities cannot substitute for proof required in establishing the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt.[37] | |||||
|
2010-02-16 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The test to determine whether or not the circumstantial evidence on record is sufficient to convict the accused requires that the duly proven series of circumstances must be consistent with each other, and that each and every circumstance must be consistent with the accused's guilt and inconsistent with his innocence.[36] In other words, the circumstantial evidence must do more than just raise the mere possibility or even the probability of guilt. It must engender moral certainty. | |||||
|
2009-07-27 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| We cannot convict appellants for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide when the evidence relied upon by the trial court is plainly erroneous and inadequate to prove appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Conviction must rest on nothing less than moral certainty, whether it proceeds from direct or circumstantial evidence.[26] | |||||
|
2008-03-03 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The combination of the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. To uphold a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, 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 the others, as the guilty person. The test to determine whether or not the circumstantial evidence on record is sufficient to convict the accused is that the series of circumstances duly proved must be consistent with one other and that each and every circumstance must be consistent with accused's guilt and inconsistent with his innocence.[8] The circumstances must be proved, and not themselves presumed.[9] The circumstantial evidence must exclude the possibility that some other person has committed the offense. | |||||
|
2003-01-13 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| We agree. The interviews are hearsay and thus lack probative value, because the persons interviewed by PO2 de Asis were never presented in court.[31] It is of no moment that no timely objection was raised during the trial in the face of such evidence.[32] A conviction can never be rooted thereon, because it is not grounded on the personal knowledge of the witness, but on the knowledge of some other person who was not cross-examined on the witness stand.[33] Thus, the court a quo erred when it used the interviews conducted by PO2 de Asis. | |||||
|
2002-12-17 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| inherently weak, the conviction of accused-appellant must rest not on the weakness of his defense but on the strength of the prosecution's evidence.[25] This applies with more vigor in the case at bar where the evidence of the prosecution is purely circumstantial. A judgment of conviction must rest on nothing less than moral certainty.[26] While we strongly condemn the senseless and gruesome crime and sincerely commiserate with the suffering and emotional stress suffered by the bereaved family of the victim, nevertheless, we find the pieces of circumstantial evidence insufficient to prove the guilt of | |||||