Practice question
There is no eyewitness to the charged act. The prosecution proves several circumstances whose combination establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt and satisfies Rule 133, Section 4. The defense argues that only direct evidence can ever support conviction. Which is correct?
- Absence of an eyewitness always requires acquittal
- Circumstances need not be proved if they sound plausible
- Any single suspicion is enough
- Circumstantial evidence can support conviction when its requirements and the beyond-reasonable-doubt standard are satisfied
- The criminal standard becomes preponderance without eyewitnesses
Legal references
- A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, Rule 133, Sections 2 and 4; Patotoy v. People, G.R. No. 257910, March 4, 2025, main decision.
- Reviewed primary authority, Rule 133, Sections 2 and 4: https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/am_19-08-15-sc_2019.html
- Reviewed primary authority, Main decision, prosecution burden and presumption of innocence: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2025/mar2025/gr_257910_2025.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.