Practice question
No one saw a theft occur. The prosecution offers several independently proved circumstances linking the accused to the specific missing property, and the court must evaluate whether their combination excludes reasonable doubt. The defense demands acquittal solely because no eyewitness described the actual taking. Which is correct?
- The absence of an eyewitness always defeats conviction
- The absence alone is not decisive; properly established circumstantial evidence can suffice if all Section 4 requirements are met
- Any two circumstances automatically require conviction
- The defense must prove innocence because there is no eyewitness
- Every relevant circumstance is conclusive by itself
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/pdf/am_19-08-15-sc_2019.pdf — A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, current Rules 128 §3, 130 §§21–22, 131 §1, 133 §§1–2,4–6.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2025/jul2025/gr_269730_2025.html — Gamon v. People, G.R. No. 269730, July 9, 2025, MAIN decision (direct and circumstantial evidence and collective assessment).
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2025/apr2025/gr_265570_2025.html — People v. Akil, G.R. No. 265570, April 7, 2025, MAIN decision (police-initiated private questioning of a detainee and custodial confession).
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.