Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 65 views

    Diega V Prof

    Uploaded by

    Romarie Abrazaldo
    The document discusses the standards for evaluating circumstantial evidence in criminal cases. It states that circumstantial evidence is sufficient if it consists of more than one established circumstance and the combination of circumstances warrants a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Additionally, all circumstances must be consistent with each other and the hypothesis of guilt, and inconsistent with innocence or any other rational hypothesis except guilt. The document applies these standards and finds the circumstantial evidence in this case leads to the inescapable conclusion that the appellant committed the crimes of rape and homicide.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Diega V Prof

    Uploaded by

    Romarie Abrazaldo
    65 views1 page
    The document discusses the standards for evaluating circumstantial evidence in criminal cases. It states that circumstantial evidence is sufficient if it consists of more than one established circumstance and the combination of circumstances warrants a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Additionally, all circumstances must be consistent with each other and the hypothesis of guilt, and inconsistent with innocence or any other rational hypothesis except guilt. The document applies these standards and finds the circumstantial evidence in this case leads to the inescapable conclusion that the appellant committed the crimes of rape and homicide.

    Original Description:

    Ruling

    Original Title

    Diega v Prof

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses the standards for evaluating circumstantial evidence in criminal cases. It states that circumstantial evidence is sufficient if it consists of more than one established circumstance and the combination of circumstances warrants a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Additionally, all circumstances must be consistent with each other and the hypothesis of guilt, and inconsistent with innocence or any other rational hypothesis except guilt. The document applies these standards and finds the circumstantial evidence in this case leads to the inescapable conclusion that the appellant committed the crimes of rape and homicide.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    65 views1 page

    Diega V Prof

    Uploaded by

    Romarie Abrazaldo
    The document discusses the standards for evaluating circumstantial evidence in criminal cases. It states that circumstantial evidence is sufficient if it consists of more than one established circumstance and the combination of circumstances warrants a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Additionally, all circumstances must be consistent with each other and the hypothesis of guilt, and inconsistent with innocence or any other rational hypothesis except guilt. The document applies these standards and finds the circumstantial evidence in this case leads to the inescapable conclusion that the appellant committed the crimes of rape and homicide.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    ERPASCUAL DIEGA y PAJARES, Petitioner.

    v.s.
    COURT OF APPEALS, Respondent.
    G.R. No. 173510. March 15, 2010.

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee.


    v.s.
    ERPASCUAL DIEGA y PAJARES, Appellant.
    G.R. No. 174099. March 15, 2010.
    (En Banc)

    Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of collateral facts and circumstances from which the existence
    of the main fact may be inferred according to reason and common experience. It is sufficient to sustain
    conviction if: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences were
    derived have been established; and (c) the combination of all circumstances is such as to warrant a
    finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

    For circumstantial evidence to be sufficient to support a conviction, all the circumstances must be
    consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that 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. In other words, a judgment of conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained when
    the circumstances proved form an unbroken chain that results in a fair and reasonable conclusion
    pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the perpetrator.

    Here, the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution leads to the inescapable conclusion that
    the appellant committed the complex crime of rape with homicide. When considered together, the
    circumstances point to the appellant as the culprit to the exclusion of all others.

    You might also like