Decision 8 G.R. No. 224469 In practice, there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt where the judge can conclude: "All the above, as established during trial, lead to no other conclusion than the commission of the crime as prescribed in the law." 29 It has been explained: With respect to those of a contrary view, it is difficult to think of a more accurate statement than that which defines reasonable doubt as a doubt for which one can give a reason, so long as the reason given is logically connected to the evidence. An inability to give such a reason for the doubt one entertains is the first and most obvious indication that the doubt held may not be reasonable. In this respect, I agree with the United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, in US v. Dale, 991 F.2d 819 (1993) at p.853: "The instruction ... fairly convey[s] that the requisite doubt must be 'based on reason' as distinguished from fancy, whim or conjecture." You will note that the Crown must establish the accused's guilt beyond a "reasonable doubt", not 'beyond "any doubt". A reasonable doubt is exactly what it says -a doubt based on reason- on the logical processes of the mind. It is not a fanciful or speculative doubt, nor is it a doubt based upon sympathy or prejudice. It is the sort of doubt which, if you ask yourself "why do I doubt?" -you can assign a logical reason by way of an answer. A logical reason in this context means a reason connected either to the evidence itself, including any conflict you may find exists after considering the evidence as a whole, or to an absence of evidence which in the circumstances of this case you believe is essential to a conviction. You must not base your doubt on the proposition that nothing is certain or impossible or that anything is possible. You are not entitled to set up a standard of absolute certainty and to say that the evidence does not measure up to that standard. In many things it is impossible to prove absolute certainty. 30 First Issue: Petitioners are IrayaMangyan IPs who are a publicly known ICC inhabiting areas within Oriental Mindoro. IPs in the Philippines inhabit the interiors and mountains of Luzon, Mindoro, Negros, Samar, Leyte, Palawan, Mindanao, and Sulu group of islands. 31 In Cruz v. Secretary of Natural Resources, 32 the Court recognized the following ICCs residing in Region IV: Dumagats of Aurora, Rizal; 29 30 31 32 Dinamlingv. People, 761 Phil. 356,374 (2015). R. v. Lifchus, 1996 CanLII 6631 (MB CA), <http://canlii.ca/t/lnpkc>, retrieved on 2020-08-25. See J. Puno's Separate Opinion (Cruz v. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, (Resolution, Per Curiam, En Banc), 400 Phil. 904, 947 (2000). Id.