CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

Circumstantial evidence is that evidence which proves a fact or series of facts from which the facts in issue may be established by inference.  According to Rule 133, Section 4 of the Rules, circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) the inference is based on proven facts; and (3) the combination of all circumstances produces a conviction beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused. (PEOPLE vs. BASCUGIN, G.R. No. 184704, June 30, 2009, Third Division, Velasco, Jr., J.).

Direct evidence of the crime is not the only matrix wherefrom a trial court may draw its conclusion and finding of guilt. The rules of evidence allow a trial court to rely on circumstantial evidence to support its conclusion of guilt. Circumstantial evidence is that evidence which proves a fact or series of facts from which the facts in issue may be established by inference. At times, resort to circumstantial evidence is imperative since to insist on direct testimony would, in many cases, result in setting felons free and deny proper protection to the community.   Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, provides that circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if the following requisites are complied with:

(1)   There is more than one circumstance;

(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. 

All the circumstances must be consistent with one another, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent. Thus, conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be upheld, provided that the circumstances proven constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion that points to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person.

To assay its probative value, circumstantial evidence must be tested against Four (4) necessary guidelines:

x x x x (a) It should be acted upon with caution; (b) All the essential facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt; (c) The facts must exclude every other theory but that of guilt of the accused; and (d) The facts must establish with certainty the guilt of the accused as to convince beyond reasonable doubt that he was the perpetrator of the offense. The peculiarity of circumstantial evidence is that the series of events pointing to the commission of a felony is appreciated not singly but collectively. The guilt of the accused cannot be deduced from scrutinizing just one (1) particular piece of evidence. It is more like a puzzle which when put together reveals a convincing picture pointing to the conclusion that the accused is the author of the crime (PEOPLE vs. RUBIO, G.R. No. 179748, October 2, 2009, Second Division, Carpio Morales, J.).

            In Nover Salvador vs. People of the Philippines, the Supreme Court declared that the individual pieces of evidence may not be sufficient to point to the accused as the author of the crime. However, when taken together, they are more than enough to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the crime of homicide. Thus:

 According to the Supreme Court, prior to the fateful night when Arlenes lifeless body was discovered, several witnesses saw petitioner in possession of a balisong. The NBI autopsy report, in turn, stated that the wounds sustained by Arlene were inflicted with the use of a weapon only one side of which was sharp (such as a balisong). After the discovery of the crime, the balisong was nowhere to be found. Hence, the trial court was correct in its conclusion that the balisong previously seen in petitioners possession was the very weapon used in stabbing the victim. While petitioner admitted owning a different kind of weapon, he failed to produce it in court. As such, it remained a self-serving allegation that cannot be considered to exonerate him from liability.

As to petitioners shirt and briefs, as correctly held by the trial court (and as affirmed by the appellate court), they were found to be stained with type O blood (the victims blood type). Instead of questioning the absence of proof that he was not of the same blood type as the victim, petitioner should have presented evidence that he indeed has type O blood. The fact remains that petitioner offered no explanation why his shirt and briefs contained bloodstains. It is, therefore, correct to conclude that they were stained with the victims blood.

Moreover, the absence of scratches and bruises on petitioner’s body parts does not negate the trial courts conclusion that the victim had the chance to struggle with the petitioner. This is so because, at the time the petitioner attacked the victim between 1:00 and 4:00 in the morning, she was most likely asleep and was only awakened by the petitioner; she was, therefore, not in a position to offer strong resistance. This explains why such struggle produced no bruises and scratches.

The presence of petitioner’s wife inside the house at that time does not likewise negate the commission of the crime. Considering that his wife was a nursing mother who definitely had sleepless nights, she could not be expected to be conscious of everything that happened outside her room.

More importantly, intent to kill was duly established by the witnesses when they testified relative to the peeping incident. Although there was no evidence or allegation of sexual advances, such incident manifested petitioner’s evil motive. It is a rule in criminal law that motive, being a state of mind, is established by the testimony of witnesses on the acts or statements of the accused before or immediately after the commission of the offense, deeds or words that may express it or from which his motive or reason for committing it may be inferred. Motive and intent may be considered one and the same, in some instances, as in the present case.

Lastly, the DNA analysis made by the NBI expert placed the petitioner at the scene of the crime. Such evidence was considered, together with the other circumstances discussed earlier.

Undoubtedly, the individual pieces of evidence may not be sufficient to point to the accused as the author of the crime. However, when taken together, they are more than enough to establish beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner committed the crime of homicide. We would like to emphasize at this point that the peculiarity of circumstantial evidence is that the guilt of the accused cannot be deduced from scrutinizing just one particular piece of evidence. It is more like a puzzle which, when put together, reveals a remarkable picture pointing towards the conclusion that the accused is the author of the crime (NOVER BRYAN SALVADOR y DE LEON. vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 164266, July 23, 2008, Third Division, Nachura, J.).