This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-01-18 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Thirdly, conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit the felony.[23] Proof of the actual agreement to commit the crime need not be direct because conspiracy may be implied or inferred from their acts.[24] Herein, both lower courts deduced the conspiracy between the accused from the mode and manner in which they perpetrated the killings. We are satisfied that their deduction was warranted. | |||||
|
2010-11-24 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement to commit an unlawful act.[8] It may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime.[9] Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated or inferred from the acts of the accused evincing a joint or common purpose and design, concerted action, and community of interest.[10] | |||||
|
2010-10-13 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Under the law, a conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.[17] Yet, the State did not have to prove the petitioners' previous agreement to commit the murder,[18] because their conspiracy was deduced from the mode and manner in which they had perpetrated their criminal act.[19] They had acted in concert in assaulting Llona, with their individual acts manifesting a community of purpose and design to achieve their evil end. As it is, all the conspirators in a crime are liable as co-principals.[20] Thus, they cannot now successfully assail their conviction as co-principals in murder. | |||||