This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2016-02-01 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| It must be emphasized that "[c]ourts must judge the guilt or innocence of the accused based on facts and not on mere conjectures, presumptions, or suspicions."[45] It is iniquitous to base Franco's guilt on the presumptions of the prosecution's witnesses for the Court has, time and again, declared that if the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more interpretations, one of which being consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other or others consistent with his guilt, then the evidence in view of the constitutional presumption of innocence has not fulfilled the test of moral certainty and is thus insufficient to support a conviction.[46] | |||||
|
2015-12-07 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without violence against, or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another without the latter's consent.[44] Intent to gain or animus lucrandi is an internal act that is presumed from the unlawful taking by the offender of the thing subject of asportation.[45] Theft becomes qualified if it is among others, committed with grave abuse of confidence.[46] | |||||
|
2015-01-26 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| And fourth, the rule in circumstantial evidence cases is that the evidence must exclude the possibility that some other person committed the crime.[21] In the case here, however, the prosecution failed to prove, or even allege, that it was impossible for some other person to have committed the crime of theft against Alas. The prosecution failed to adduce evidence that at the time the theft was committed, there was no other person inside the house of Alas, or that no other person could have taken the money from the closet of Alas. Alas himself admitted that there were other residents in the house, but these persons were never presented to prove their whereabouts at the time the incident took place. This failure of the prosecution leads the Court to no other conclusion but that they failed to establish that culpability could only belong to Zabala, and not to some other person. | |||||
|
2014-12-08 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.[32] Circumstantial evidence suffices to convict an accused only if the circumstances proven constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person; 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 any other hypothesis except that of guilt. Corollary thereto, a conviction based on circumstantial evidence must exclude each and every hypothesis consistent with innocence.[33] | |||||