Practice question
A circumstantial case presents several proved circumstances. Counsel says absence of an eyewitness necessarily means there can be no proof, regardless of whether the combination satisfies Rule133 Section4. Which is correct?
- Circumstantial evidence may suffice when the rule’s requirements and reasonable-doubt standard are met
- Only eyewitness evidence can ever prove guilt
- Every circumstance automatically proves guilt
- More than one allegation alone is sufficient
- A suspicion is equivalent to a proved circumstance
Legal references
- A.M.19-08-15-SC, 2019 amended Rules on Evidence, effective May1,2020, Rules128,130,131 and133: https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/pdf/am_19-08-15-sc_2019.pdf
- Dela Llana v. Biong, G.R.182356, December4,2013, MAIN: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_182356_2013.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.