REMEDIAL LAW; CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCE

Question: Is circumstantial evidence sufficient to convict persons accused of rape with

homicide in a case where the accused were seen by the witness are going out and
running away of the victim’s house where the latter's lifeless body was found?
Answer: No. Admittedly, this circumstance may raise a speculation, as, in fact,
inevitably made the accused the prime suspects, but it is far too inadequate to support a
conviction. It is a mere conjecture that can be refuted by other equally conceivable and
rational inferences. The testimony of the witness does not conclusively connect accused
to the rape-slay of AAA, but merely arouse suspicion against them. The Court has
consistently stressed that mere suspicions and speculations can never be the bases of
conviction in a criminal case. The alleged presence of the accused at the locus criminis
does not necessarily mean that they authored the crime. (People vs Cadenas and
Martije, G. R. No. 233199, November 5, 2018, Peralta, J.)