This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-10-02 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Private respondent points out petitioner's reliance on a certain "executive summary"[82] to support the latter's allegation that the subject transaction was grossly anomalous. This document, according to private respondent, has absolutely no evidentiary value, as its origin is unknown, and it is unsigned. As regards petitioner's submission of a Special Report dated August 16, 2000 from the Philippine Daily Inquirer as evidence, private respondent points out that newspaper and magazine articles are "hearsay twice removed and have no evidentiary value whatsoever." Private respondent Vigilar cites in support of this contention the decision laid down by this Court in People v. Woolcock, et al.[83] | |||||
|
2001-03-26 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| The above circumstances are too inadequate to establish a conspiracy between accused-appellant Walter Melencion and his co-accused Eulalio Autida. To hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by conspiracy, there must be a sufficient and unbroken chain of events that directly and definitely links the accused to the commission of the crime without any space for baseless suppositions or frenzied theories to filter through. It must be established that the two (2) pursued their acts towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful objective, each performing his assigned task so that their acts, though apparently independent from each other, were in fact related, connected and cooperative, thus indicating a closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment.[21] | |||||