Scribd
Upload
34 views1 page

People vs. Baron

Circumstantial evidence can be sufficient to render a judgment of conviction against an accused. There must be more than one circumstance established, and the combination of circumstances must warrant a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt and form an unbroken chain pointing to the accused as the perpetrator, to the exclusion of all others. In this case, the circumstantial evidence presented leads to the inescapable conclusion that the appellant conspired to commit robbery with homicide, as the circumstances point to him and his co-accused as the culprits, and no one else.

Uploaded by

MAC
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
34 views1 page

People vs. Baron

Circumstantial evidence can be sufficient to render a judgment of conviction against an accused. There must be more than one circumstance established, and the combination of circumstances must warrant a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt and form an unbroken chain pointing to the accused as the perpetrator, to the exclusion of all others. In this case, the circumstantial evidence presented leads to the inescapable conclusion that the appellant conspired to commit robbery with homicide, as the circumstances point to him and his co-accused as the culprits, and no one else.

Uploaded by

MAC
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

People vs.

Baron
G.R. No. 185209 June 28, 2010

Issue: Whether or not circumstantial evidence is sufficient to render a judgment of conviction against the
accused for the commission of the crime of robbery with homicide.

Held: Yes.

There is no direct evidence proving that the appellant conspired and participated in committing the crime.
However, his complicity may be proved by circumstantial evidence, which consists of proof of collateral
facts and circumstances from which the existence of the main fact may be inferred according to reason
and common experience.

Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to sustain conviction if: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b)
the facts from which the inferences are derived have been established; (c) the combination of all
circumstances is such as to warrant a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. A judgment of conviction
based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained when the circumstances proved form an unbroken
chain that results to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all
others, as the perpetrator.

In this case, the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution leads to the inescapable conclusion
that the appellant and his co-accused conspired to commit robbery with homicide. When considered
together, the circumstances point to them and no one else as the culprits.

You might also like