This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2014-06-02 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| In the light of the positive identification by both witnesses, the alibi of appellant must fail.[40] Besides, he was not able to prove that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime when it happened. It appears, rather, that he lived near Samad's farm, and that he was at his house when the crime was committed. Thus, we are constrained to reject his alibi. | |||||
|
2000-06-23 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| While only Ronnie Agomo-o shot and killed Rodito Lasap, accused-appellants cannot be exonerated. When conspiracy is established, all who carried out the plan and who personally took part in its execution are equally liable.[46] Accused-appellants must both also be held responsible for the death of Rodito Lasap. | |||||
|
2000-06-20 |
KAPUNAN, J. |
||||
| Contrary to accused-appellants' contention, the fact that Josefina is the wife of the victim does not make her testimony less believable. No law disqualifies a person from testifying in a criminal case in which [her] relative is involved if the former was really at the scene of the crime and witnessed the execution of the criminal act.[27] In this case, Josefina did not only witness the killing of her husband by accused-appellants; she was a victim herself as accused-appellants likewise hacked her when she tried to pull her husband away from them. | |||||
|
2000-05-31 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a crime and decide to commit it.[29] Proof of the agreement need not rest on direct evidence as the same may be inferred from the conduct of the parties indicating a common understanding among them with respect to the commission of the offense. It is not necessary to show that two or more persons met together and entered into an explicit agreement setting out the details of an unlawful scheme or the details by which an illegal objective is to be carried out.[30] It 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.[31] | |||||
|
2000-05-09 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| The murder was committed prior to the effectivity of R. A. 7659 on December 31, 1993.[26] The applicable provision is Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code which penalizes murder with reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death. The trial court correctly sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, the medium period of the imposable penalty.[27] | |||||
|
2000-04-06 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Second. Nor can accused-appellant be held liable for the killing of Roderick Ferol on the ground of conspiracy. "[F]or conspiracy to exist, proof of an actual planning of the perpetration of the crime is not a condition precedent. It 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."[29] | |||||
|
2000-01-28 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Conspiracy among the accused-appellants to kill Alfredo dela Cruz was present. Conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence, it may be inferred from the conduct of all the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime.[16] It 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.[17] The community of design and action among the accused-appellants is apparent when accused-appellants Georgie and Romenciano Ricafranca made their respective appearances during the assault initiated by accused-appellant Edson Ricafranca and aided the latter in rendering Alfredo dela Cruz defenseless and vulnerable to their deadly attack. | |||||