Circumstanstial evidence - G.R. No. 187497

G.R. No. 187497

"x x x.

Preliminarily, we note that the lack of direct evidence does not ipso facto bar the finding of guilt against the appellant. As long as the prosecution establishes the appellant’s participation in the crime through credible and sufficient circumstantial evidence[18] that leads to the inescapable conclusion that the appellant committed the imputed crime,[19] the latter should be convicted.

According to Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, circumstantial evidence 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.”[20] In this regard, we give great weight to the findings of fact made by the RTC, as upheld by the CA,[21] xxx.

x x x."