Circumstantial Evidence Weighing and Admission: Case study – Passaporn Boonyakasemsanti, Homicide Case

Abstract

           This research aims to study the legal meaning and legislation in compliance with circumstantial evidence, in case of inclusionary rules and weighing legal evidence from the analysis of Passaporn Boonyakasemsanti, M.D. homicide case. The research results revealed that in English evidence law, circumstantial evidence is the indirect evidence that indirectly establishes the existence or nonexistence of a fact of event sought to be proved. It is distinguished from direct evidence, which proves the existence of a particular fact without any inference or presumption required for the parties. Consequently, circumstantial evidence allows a trier to infer that a fact in order to support the truth of an assertion.
           Despite the fact that in Thailand has no direct legislation applicable to circumstance evidence, it is reasonable to use it in courts to establish guilt or innocence as shown in the civil procedure code: section 87, section 86/3 and section 226 of the criminal procedure code.
           To investigate the testimony, there are two layers of procedures which contain 1) determine whether the witness testified is true or false. In other words, the witness’s testimony is credible or not. 2) If the witness is testified, it is required to make a connection, continuity and consequently in details between the circumstance and the fact. In addition, there are often more than one logical conclusion inferable from the same set of circumstances in comparable to the rope spiral of truth.
           An Important thing to prove the evidence’s reliability is not to emphasize on any testimony in particular. However, all pieces of evidence must be reconsidered altogether to corroborate and reconfirm that those detailed linkages have built an unassailable mass of circumstantial evidence of the incidence.   
           The homicide of Passaporn Boonkasemsanti, M.D., referring to Supreme Court Judgement No 2236/2560 reported that despite without a witness, the investigators gathered all circumstantial evidences into a strong witness of the case in proclaiming to the court that the defendant killed Dr. Passaporn. Moreover, this case is considered that the expert is critical in giving more scrutiny to the court judgement since those opinions were based on knowledge, expertise and experience. In criminal law, an experts’ statement is just a circumstantial evidence to certify that all bloodstains and chunks of fresh belong to Dr. Passaporn, but it is not necessary that the defendant killed her.
           Therefore, other circumstantial witnesses were required as jigsaw pieces to fit together to finally visualize the evidence. Every piece is important in itself according to the principle of testimony weighing.
           Concisely, as the result of circumstantial evidence investigated from the study of Dr. Passaporn Boonyakasemsanti homicide case, the research finds prosperous results to the inquiry officer in collecting and gathering evidence and testimony. The circumstantial evidence is divided into two parts which include inward part and the other part, which is behavior derivation. In such a case, the inquiry officer must connect both two parts of the evidence to result  in the admissibility of evidence in the trial.