"It is axiomatic in criminal law that the quantum of evidence required for conviction of an accused is that which produces moral certainly in an unprejudiced mind that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If the evidence is susceptible of two (2) interpretations, one inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and the other inconsistent with his guilt, the accused must be acquitted. 23
Accordingly, circumstantial evidence would only be sufficient if there is a concurrence of the following elements: (a) there is more than one circumstance, (b) the facts from which the inference was derived are proven and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstances must be "an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion, which points to the defendant, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person."24 The Constitution demands no less than "proof beyond reasonable doubt", consistent with the demands of justice and due process.
In sum, we rule that while accused-appellant's alibi may have been weak, the evidence presented by the prosecution was much weaker. A broken chain of circumstances cannot overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence in favor of the accused which entitles him to an ACQUITTAL."
G.R. Nos. 110991-92 February 24, 1995
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
MELCHOR DELA IGLESIA, accused-appellant.
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/feb1995/gr_110991_92_1995.html
