Circumstantial Evidence

Post updated on: [last-modified]

evidence that “indirectly proves a fact in issue through an inference which the fact-finder draws from the evidence established. Resort thereto is essential when the lack of direct testimony would result in setting a felon free. – People v. Matito

Is it weaker compared to direct evidence? No.

It is not a weaker form of evidence vis–vis direct evidence. Cases have recognized that in its effect upon the courts, the former may surpass the latter in weight and probative force.

Will result to conviction if:

1. MORE THAN ONE. (a)there is more than one circumstance;
2. PROVEN. (b)the facts from which the inferences are derived have been proven; and
3. RESULTS TO MORAL CERTAINTY WHEN COMBINED/INTERWOVEN (c) the combination of all the circumstances results in a moral certainty that the accused, to the exclusion of all others, is the one who has committed the crime. Thus, to justify a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the combination of circumstances must be interwoven in such a way as to leave no reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused.

Circumstantial Evidence is sanctioned by Rule 133, Section 4 of the Revised Rules on Evidence