This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2004-02-03 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Rusia's discharge has the effect of an acquittal.[113] We are not inclined to recall such discharge lest he will be placed in double jeopardy. Parenthetically, the order for his discharge may only be recalled in one instance, which is when he subsequently failed to testify against his co-accused. The fact that not all the requisites for his discharge are present is not a ground to recall the discharge order. Unless and until it is shown that the he failed or refused to testify against his co-accused, subsequent proof showing that any or all of the conditions listed in Sec. 9 of Rule 119 were not fulfilled would not wipe away the resulting acquittal.[114] | |||||
|
2000-05-31 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, even as the victim already lay helpless on the ground Mendoza's cohort, Johnny Sanchez, ruthlessly continued to stab the victim until he died. Thus, it can be gleaned from the circumstances surrounding the perpetration of the crime that the accused and Sanchez conspired to bring about the gory end of their victim. Conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during, and after the crime, which are indicative of a common design, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments.[25] And once conspiracy or action in concert to achieve a criminal design is shown, the act of one is the act of all the conspirators, and the precise extent or modality of participation of each of them becomes secondary.[26] The act of Sanchez in stabbing the victim while the latter was already prostrate on the ground was by itself treacherous since the victim could no longer put up any defense against the attack. As a conspirator Mendoza should also be responsible for the treacherous act. | |||||