Week 16, Part 7 (28:08-31:06)

Edren Castillo

.. . the identity, the elements of the crime, the qualifying/ aggravating circumstances, the degree of
culpability of the accused.

But as an exception, this can also be proven by circumstantial evidence.

So general rule, dapat direct evidence.

However, the Supreme Court has pronounced that conviction of an accused through circumstantial
evidence as long as the following requisites or presence may be had:

(1) That there must be more than one circumstance;

(2) That the inference must be based on proven facts; and
(3) That the combination of all circumstances produces a conviction beyond doubt of the guilt of the
accused.

For example, in the case of murder. There is no eyewitness directly pointing to an accused na sya talaga
yung nag stab ng victim. However, an eyewitness saw the accused leave the house of the victim carrying
a knife tapos may dugo2 sya and he was running away so fast from the house of the victim. And then
other circumstantial evidence – kunwari there is the blood of the accused in the house of the victim.
The knife was recovered in the possession or under the control of the accused, the testimony of a
forensic expert shows that the knife matches the stab wounds of the victim. So if you infer from all of
the circumstantial evidence, the eyewitness himself did not see the accused stab the victim. But if you
infer from all the circumstances - the eyewitness seeing the accused leave the house bloodied carrying a
knife, possession or seizure of the knife under the control of the accused, the presence of the blood of
the accused in the house of the victim or in the scene of the crime, and the fact that the stab wounds
match a stab wound that would result from the knife that was seized from the accused. So unless the
accused is able to prove or to show a valid defense or reasonable doubt, then the circumstantial
evidence of the case will most likely lead to a conclusion that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable
doubt.