Paghahain ng reklamong kriminal base sa circumstantial evidence

ni Atty. Persida Rueda-Acosta @Magtanong Kay Attorney | May 7, 2025

Dear Chief Acosta,

Maaari pa rin kayang maghain ng reklamong kriminal kung walang hawak na direktang ebidensya ang nagrereklamo? Mayroon kasing pang-aabuso na ginawa sa kapatid ko. Bagaman mayroon siyang mga katibayan, hindi ito direktang ebidensya. Nais sanang isulong ng kapatid ko ang kanyang reklamo ngunit hindi namin alam kung maaari bang gamitin ang ganoong uri ng ebidensya. Sana ay malinawan ninyo ako. — Bonito

---

Dear Bonito,

Ang pagpapatunay sa hukuman ng krimen ay nangangailangan ng katibayan na hihigit sa makatuwirang pagdududa o proof beyond reasonable doubt. Ang naturang katibayan ay hindi nangangahulugan na magpapakita ng ganap na katiyakan. Bagkus, sapat na ang maipakita nang mayroong moral na katiyakan na naganap ang krimen at ang taong inaakusahan ang siyang may-akda nito. Partikular na nakasaad sa Section 2, Rule 133 ng naaprubahan na 2019 Proposed Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence (A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC):

“Section 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. — In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his or her guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.”

Ganoon pa man, nais naming bigyang-diin na ang katibayan na tinutukoy sa nabanggit na tuntunin ay hindi nililimita sa direktang ebidensya lamang. Sa katunayan, sa ilalim ng A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC ay kinikilala rin ang pagpipresenta ng circumstantial evidence. Kaugnay nito, upang mahatulan ang tao na inaakusahan ng krimen base sa circumstantial evidence ay kinakailangan na mapatunayan na mayroong higit sa isang sirkumstansya o pangyayari, ang mga sirkumstansya o pangyayari na ito ay napatunayan, at ang kumbinasyon ng mga ito ay magbubunga ng paghahatol ng higit sa makatuwirang pagdududa. Ito ay alinsunod sa Section 4, Rule 133, Id, na nagsasaad ng mga sumusunod:

“Section 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. - Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:

1. There is more than one circumstance;

2. The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and

3. The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

Inferences cannot be based on other inferences.” 

Para sa dagdag na kaalaman, nais naming ibahagi ang ipinahayag ng ating Korte Suprema, sa panulat ni Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco Jr. sa kasong Kyle Anthony Zabala vs. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 210760, January 26, 2015):

“It is a settled rule that circumstantial evidence is sufficient to support a conviction, and that direct evidence is not always necessary. This is but a recognition of the reality that in certain instances, due to the inherent attempt to conceal a crime, it is not always possible to obtain direct evidence. In Bacolod v. People, this Court had the occasion to say:

The lack or absence of direct evidence does not necessarily mean that the guilt of the accused cannot be proved by evidence other than direct evidence. Direct evidence is not the sole means of establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, because circumstantial evidence, if sufficient, can supplant the absence of direct evidence. The crime charged may also be proved by circumstantial evidence, sometimes referred to as indirect or presumptive evidence. Circumstantial evidence has been defined as that which ‘goes to prove a fact or series of facts other than the facts in issue, which, if proved, may tend by inference to establish a fact in issue.’”

Sana ay nabigyan namin ng linaw ang iyong katanungan. Ang payong aming ibinigay ay base lamang sa mga impormasyon na iyong inilahad at maaaring magbago kung mababawasan o madaragdagan ang mga detalye ng iyong salaysay. 

Maraming salamat sa iyong patuloy na pagtitiwala.