Circumstantial Evidence
Circumstantial Evidence is evidence that does not directly prove a fact on its own, but allows a judge to infer that the fact is true based on logical deduction. It is evidence that proves a fact or series of facts from which the facts in issue may be established by inference. It is founded on experience, observed facts and coincidences establishing a connection between the known and proven facts and the facts sought to be proved. (People of the Philippines v. Canlas, GR 141633, December 14, 2001)
Examples are forensic evidence such as fingerprints and DNA found at the crime scene, behavior and demeanor of the suspect, motive and opportunity, digital footprints such as cell phone tower locations, web browser search history or credit card transactions.
The opposite is Direct Evidence which is defined as evidence which proves a key fact immediately and on its own, without the aid of any inference or presumption. (Go v. Leyte II Electric Cooperative, GR 176909, February 18, 2008)
Examples of direct evidence are eyewitness testimony, video or audio recordings showing the commission of the crime and the perpetrator, confessions of the accused, official documents or receipts establishing the agreement between the parties.
In the show Suits, lawyer Harvey Specter frequently dismisses the claims of the opposing counsel or prosecutors by telling them: “You’ve got no witnesses, no direct proof—just a pile of circumstantial garbage. See you in court.”
In the real world, this is a myth. Circumstantial evidence is admissible in court and carries legal weight. There are many cases decided based solely on circumstantial evidence and convictions of crimes where courts have arrived at conclusions that that the prosecution was able to provide beyond reasonable doubt that a crime was committed by the accused.
Rule 133, Section 4 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction of a crime when:
(a) There is more than one circumstance;(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether based on Direct or Circumstantial evidence, conviction of a crime must always rest on nothing less than moral certainty that establishes proof beyond reasonable doubt as to the commission of the crime and the perpetrator.
The test to determine whether or not the circumstantial evidence on record is sufficient to convict the accused is that the series of circumstances duly proved must be consistent with each other and that each and every circumstance must be consistent with the accused’s guilt and inconsistent with his innocence. The circumstantial evidence must exclude the possibility that some other person has committed the offense. (People of the Philippines v. Canlas, GR 141633, December 14, 2001)The case of Espinelli v. People of the Philippines (G.R. No.179535, June 9, 2014) decided by the Supreme Court provides an illustration of circumstantial evidence leading to a conviction for the crime of murder.Accused Espinelli was convicted for the killing of Alberto Berbon who died due to multiple gunshot wounds. There was no witness who saw the shooting of Berbon.
Nonetheless, Espinelli was convicted and, his conviction was based on circumstantial evidence.
The following circumstances led to the conclusion by the Courts that there was an unbroken chain leading to a fair and reasonable conclusion that Espinelli committed the crime.
- NBI Agent Segunial testified that while he was investigating one Danilo Reyes, who was arrested for Illegal Possession of a Deadly Weapon, the latter confided to him that he heard Espinelli telling another person, Sotero Paredes, “Ayaw ko nang abutin pa ng bukas yang si Berbon”. Reyes also stated that he saw Espinelli and Sotero armed with a .45 caliber pistol and an armalite, before they boarded red car;
- A witness also testified that he sold Sotero a vehicle which was a red Ford Escort a few months before Berbon was killed. The witness also identified a photograph of the red car which Reyes said he saw Espinelli and Sotero boarding;
- Third, Alberto was shot and killed on December 15, 1996 and the gunmen immediately fled the scene riding a red car which was identified as the same car previously sold by Rodolfo to Sotero;
- There was also the testimony of Dr. Lagat, the NBI Medico-Legal, on his post-mortem examination of the body of Berbon that the victim suffered multiple gunshot wounds which caused by high-powered guns; and
- Espinelli’s escape from detention while the case was pending was also considered as a strong indication of his guilt.
The Courts found that the combination and cumulative effect of the established circumstances satisfied the requirement of Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court. The incriminating circumstances, when taken together, constituted an unbroken chain of events enough to arrive at the conclusion that Espinelli was responsible for the killing of the Berbon.
Accordingly, circumstantial evidence is as important as direct evidence and is equally relied upon by the Courts to convict persons accused of committing crimes provided that the circumstances proved 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. INQ
(The author, Atty. John Philip C. Siao, is a practicing lawyer and founding Partner of Tiongco Siao Bello & Associates Law Offices, an Arbitrator of the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission of the Philippines, and teaches law at the De La Salle University Tañada-Diokno School of Law. He may be contacted at jcs@tiongcosiaobellolaw.com. The views expressed in this article belong to the author alone.)
