The Indiciary Evidence in Criminal Law: Basis and Application

In the field of criminal law, obtaining direct evidence to prove the commission of a crime is not always possible. In such cases, circumstantial evidence becomes an essential tool to sustain a conviction, provided that certain requirements are met to ensure the protection of the fundamental rights of the accused.

What is the Indiciary Evidence?

Indirect evidence, also known as indirect evidence, is based on the existence of fully accredited facts (indicia) that, through logical and coherent reasoning, allow inferring the participation of the accused in the crime. Unlike direct evidence, which immediately proves the commission of the criminal act, circumstantial evidence requires a deductive process to establish the relationship between the evidence and the punishable act.

Requirements for the Validity of the Indiciary Evidence

For circumstantial evidence to be considered valid and sufficient to support a criminal conviction, the following requirements must be met:

• Fully Proven Indicia: The facts that serve as the basis for the inference must be proven in an indubitable manner, i.e., they cannot be based on mere suspicion or conjecture.
• Plurality of Indicia: It is necessary that there be multiple indicia that, taken together, strengthen the hypothesis of the defendant's participation in the crime.
• Logical Connection between Indicia and Delictment: There must be a direct and coherent relationship between the indicia and the fact to be proved, so that the conclusion is the result of logical reasoning and not mere speculation.
• Absence of Reasonable Alternative Explanations: The evidence must be of such a nature that it does not admit a different interpretation that could exculpate the accused.

Supreme Court Jurisprudence on circumstantial evidence

The Spanish Supreme Court has addressed on multiple occasions the issue of circumstantial evidence, establishing criteria for its correct application. In Ruling 532/2019, of November 4, the High Court highlighted the importance of the indicia being plural, concurrent and interrelated, so that they mutually reinforce each other and lead to an unequivocal conclusion about the defendant's participation in the crime.

Likewise, the Court has emphasized that a conviction based on circumstantial evidence must express clearly and in detail the logical process that has led to the conviction of guilt, thus allowing its control in higher instances and guaranteeing the right to effective judicial protection.

Importance of the Reasoning of the Sentence

The motivation of the sentence is an essential element when it is based on circumstantial evidence. The judge or court must explicitly state the evidence considered, the deductive process followed and the reasons for ruling out alternative hypotheses. This requirement responds to the need for transparency in the administration of justice and the protection of the rights of the accused, in particular the right to the presumption of innocence.

Conclusion

The circumstantial evidence constitutes a legitimate and valid means to support a criminal conviction, as long as the requirements established in case law are respected and an adequate motivation of the sentence is guaranteed. Its correct application allows the courts to impart justice in cases where direct evidence is inaccessible, while ensuring the protection of the fundamental rights of the accused.

José Soler Martín - Criminal Lawyer in Alicante