Dear PAO,

My niece was attacked a few days ago. She sustained bruises in her arms and a deep wound on her head. She suspects that it was her neighbor who attacked her, as they had a previous altercation. At this point, my niece does not have any direct proof that her lady neighbor is the culprit because it was dark at the time of the incident, and she was not able to see who attacked her. But, apart from their previous altercation, she says that there are other surrounding proofs that point to this lady as the one who may have committed the attack. If my niece will pursue filing a complaint based on non-direct evidence, is it possible for the culprit to be convicted?

Evita

Dear Evita,

A person accused of committing a crime shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proven. This is mandated under Article III, Section 14 (2) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which states:

“(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.” (Emphasis supplied)

As a corollary, it is imperative to have evidence that can substantiate one’s accusations so that the person who committed a crime can be held criminally responsible.

While direct evidence is ideal, realistically, it does not come about all the time, as offenders usually endeavor to conceal the crime and/or their participation thereto. For this reason, our Rules on Evidence have long recognized and accepted circumstantial evidence. To be certain, Section 4, Rule 133 of the 2019 Proposed Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence provides:

“Section 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. –

“(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 x x x”

Taking the foregoing into consideration, we submit that your niece may pursue a complaint against her neighbor even if she has no direct evidence, provided that there are pieces of evidence that must consist of an unbroken chain of circumstances and which will clearly establish the elements of the crime as well as the identity of her neighbor as its perpetrator. It has been explained by the Supreme Court, through Associate Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe, in the case of People of the Philippines v. Gilbert Floresta y Selencio (GR 239032, June 17, 2019):

“Be that as it may, the Court is aware that in certain instances, the prosecution may still sustain a conviction despite the absence of direct evidence, provided that it is able to present circumstantial evidence that would establish an accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of collateral facts and circumstances from which the main fact in issue may be inferred based on reason and common experience. It is sufficient for conviction if: (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. To uphold a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, it is essential that the circumstantial evidence presented must constitute an unbroken chain which leads one to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of the others, as the guilty person. Stated differently, 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 proven 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. (Emphasis supplied)

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated on.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net