1. People vs.

Noel Enojas y Hingpit (Text the accused, to the exclusion of the others, as the guilty
Message)
It has been held that circumstantial evidence is sufficient
for conviction if:
a. There is more than one circumstance;
b. The facts from which the inference are derived
are proven;
c. The combination of all the circumstances is such
as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable
doubt.
person. The circumstantial evidence must exclude the
possibility that some other person has committed the
crime.
Here, this Court finds that the prosecution failed
to present sufficient circumstantial evidence to convict
the petitioner of the offense charged. We find that the
pieces of evidence presented before the trial court fail to
provide a sufficient combination of circumstances as to
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

As to admissibility of text messages, the RTC admitted

them in conformity with the Courts earlier resolution
applying the Rule on Electronic Evidence to criminal
action. Text message are to be proved by the testimony
of a person who was a party to the same or has personal
knowledge. Here, PO3 Cambi, posing as the accused
Enojas, exchanged text message with the other accused
in order to identify and entrap them.
2. NAPOCOR vs CODILLA (Photocopies)
The trial court was correct in rejecting these photocopies
as they violate the best evidence rule and are therefore
of no probative value being incompetent pieces of
evidence. The best evidence rule is designed to guard
against incomplete or fraudulent proof and the
introduction of altered copies and withholding of the
originals. But the modern justification for the rule has
been expanded from the prevention of fraud to
recognition that writing occupy a central position in the
law. The importance of the precise term of writing in the
world of legal relations, the fallibility of human memory
as reliable evidence of the terms and the hazards of
inaccurate or incomplete duplicate are the concerns
addressed by the best evidence.
4. People vs. de Guzman (PNP)
Preponderance of evidence is the weight, credit, and
value of the aggregate evidence on either side and is
usually considered to be synonymous with the term
greater weight of the evidence or greater weight of the
credible evidence. Preponderance of evidence means
probability of truth. It is evidence which is more
convincing to the court as worthy to believe that that
which is offered in opposition thereto.
Here, RTC held Cruzs testimony to be not credit
worthy for being irreconcilable with petitioners earlier
admission. Contrary to petitioners contention, Cruzs
testimony cannot be considered as judicial admission
against his interest as he is neither a party to the case
nor was his admission against his own interest, but
actually against either the petitioners or the
respondents interest. Petitioners statement on the other
hand, were deliberate, clear and unequivocal and were
made in the course of judicial proceedings, thus they
qualify as judicial admission

Section 2, Rule 130 memorize

3. Zabala vs. People (Thief Circumstantial

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, my tend by inference to
establish a fact in issue.

To sustain a conviction based on circumstantial

evidence, it is essential that the circumstantial evidence
presented must constitute an unbroken chain which
leads one to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to