Circumstantial evidence; when sufficient to convict accused.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. RAFAEL OLIVARES, JR. and DANILO ARELLANO, appellants. G.R. No. 77865, December 4, 1998

Circumstantial evidence; when sufficient to convict accused.

“x x x.

With the inadmissibility of the material circumstancial evidence which were premised on the likewise extrajudicial confession upon which both the prosecution and the lower court relied to sustain appellants' conviction the remaining circumstances cannot produce a logical conclusion to establish their guilt. In order to sustain a conviction based on circumstancial evidence, it is necessary that the same satisfies the following elements:

1. there is more than one circumstances;

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.39

Simply put for circumstancial evidence to be sufficient to support a conviction, all circumstances must be consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at the same time incosistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent and with every other rational hypothesis except that of guilt.40

X x x.

X x x (S)ome of the circumstancial evidence relied upon by the trial court were, at the risk of being repetitive, based on the inadmissible extrajudicial confession. The facts which became known only by virtue of the extrajudicial confession pertains to how the victims were killed, how appellants gained entrance into the premises, and how the alleged stolen properties were found in the house where one of them was arrested. Without the foregoing facts a combination of the remainder of the circumstancial evidence cannot sustain a conviction beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt: hence, the absence of the third requisite. Forthwith the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proof and consequently to rebut with the required quantum of evidence42 the presumption of innocence43 fundamentally enjoyed by both appellants. For it is a basic evidentiary rule in criminal law that the prosecution has the onus probandi of establishing the guilt of the accused. El incumbit probatio non qui negat. He who asserts — not he who denies — must prove. Likewise, it is settled that conviction must rest not on the weakness of the defense but on the strength of the prosecution.44 Accordingly, circumstancial evidence with has not been adequately established cannot, by itself, be the basis of conviction.45

x x x.”