This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2013-07-31 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Luisa's testimonies were found by two branches of the trial court and the CA as credible, straightforward and consistent. It is also well to note that Luisa once again testified even after the proceedings before the RTC, which were conducted relative to the petitioner's initial indictment, were declared null. She was firm and unshaken in her identification of the perpetrator of the crime and no ill motive can be attributed to her on why she testified against the petitioner. It is an oft-repeated doctrine that the testimony of even "a single eyewitness is sufficient to support a conviction so long as such testimony is found to be clear and straight-forward and worthy of credence by the trial court."[14] Further, discrepancies referring only to minor details and collateral matters do not affect the veracity of the witness' declarations.[15] The alleged inconsistencies in Luisa's statements regarding which hand the petitioner used to strangle AAA and when did she inform her compadre, Lagrana, about what she had witnessed, were too inconsequential for they do not relate to the elements of the crime charged. Those inconsistencies cannot destroy the thrust of Luisa's testimony that: (a) the petitioner was the last person seen with AAA before the girl's lifeless body was found; (b) from an opening in between the door and the floor, she saw the petitioner naked on top of AAA, whose panty and shorts were taken off; and (c) the petitioner choked AAA's neck with one hand. The autopsy report prepared by Dr. Doromal indicating that AAA was raped and that she sustained injuries in her head, neck, thoraco-abdominal regions, extremities, vagina and anus validated Luisa's statements. Hence, this Court finds no arbitrariness in the factual findings of the courts a quo. | |||||
|
2008-10-08 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Even though Pancho, Jr., Dequillo and Romeo did not participate in the actual abduction of the victim, they should still be held liable, as the courts below did, because of the existence of conspiracy. Conspiracy is a unity of purpose and intention in the commission of a crime.[26] Where conspiracy is established, the precise modality or extent of participation of each individual conspirator becomes secondary since the act of one is the act of all.[27] The degree of actual participation in the commission of the crime is immaterial. | |||||
|
2008-02-18 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.[24] Direct proof of previous agreement to commit a crime is not necessary. Conspiracy may be shown through circumstantial evidence, deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the accused themselves when such lead to a joint purpose and design, concerted action, and community of interest.[25] Conspiracy must be proven as convincingly as the criminal act itself like any element of the offense charged, conspiracy must be established by proof beyond reasonable doubt.[26] For a co-conspirator to be liable for the acts of the others, there must be intentional participation in the conspiracy with a view to further a common design.[27] Except for the mastermind, it is necessary that a co-conspirator should have performed some overt act actual commission of the crime itself, active participation as a direct or indirect contribution in the execution of the crime, or moral assistance to his co-conspirators by being present at the commission of the crime or by exerting moral ascendancy over the other co-conspirators.[28] | |||||
|
2001-03-26 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| The fact is that only one (1) shot was fired and it came from the gun of accused Eulalio Autida. The shot hit the victim who suffered only one (1) bullet wound from which he died. In other words, the perpetration of the crime was executed to its very end without any aid, physical or constructive, from accused-appellant. As we have repeatedly held, when several accused are charged they can be held equally guilty regardless of their degree of participation in the offense only when their very cooperation added to its strength, emboldened the actual killer, or contributed to the success of the common design.[22] In the instant case, there is no iota of proof manifesting that Eulalio Autida could not have pursued his objective without the presence or support of accused-appellant Walter Melencion. Instead, the evidence shows that Eulalio Autida committed the crime single-handedly. Where the facts can be consistent with the non-participation of accused-appellant, conspiracy must be rejected.[23] | |||||
|
2000-09-14 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| To hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, he must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the conspiracy. That overt act may consist of active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself or moral assistance to his co-conspirators by being present at the time of the commission of the crime or by exerting moral ascendancy over the other co-conspirators moving them to execute or implement the conspiracy.[27] When Calabroso, Matos and Dumrique joined Sata inside the tricycle and fled towards Kiangan after Nacnac was stabbed they performed well-coordinated acts indicating a common purpose to steal the vehicle.[28] Conspiracy is also inferred not only from their conduct before and during the commission of the crime but also thereafter, showing that they acted in unison with each other.[29] Calabroso, Dumrique and Sata proceeded to Nueva Vizcaya to dispose of the motorcycle. Matos stayed behind as his companions promised to pick him up later. As promised, they returned to Kiangan still with the vehicle. Conspiracy having been proven, accused-appellants are equally liable for carnapping the tricycle of Nacnac.[30] | |||||