"x x x.
Jurisprudence teaches us that "for circumstantial 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
inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent x x x."1 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.2.
x x x."
See - ESPINELLI VS. PEOPLE, GR NO. 179535, JUNE 9, 2014.
