This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2004-01-20 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| As a rule, whenever homicide has been committed as a consequence of or on the occasion of the robbery, all those who took part as principals in the robbery will also be held guilty as principals of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide although they did not actually take part in the homicide, unless it clearly appears that they endeavored to prevent the homicide.[77] In the case at bar, there is absolutely no showing that either Raul Ybañez or Bumagat tried to prevent the fatal stabbing and shooting of Antonio Calaycay while Catalina Calaycay was being divested of her bag containing money and other valuables. Thus, the trial court did not err in holding that the cooperative acts of the appellants, pursuing their common criminal purpose render them equally liable as conspirators in the offense of robbery with homicide. | |||||
|
2001-06-19 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| Conspiracy is revealed by the acts before, during and after the commission of the crime which indicate joint purpose, concerted action, and concurrence of sentiments.[15] In innumerable cases, the Court has held that direct proof is not essential,[16] because conspiracy may be equably inferred from the acts of the accused disclosing their joint purpose and design. In the instant case, however, nothing less than direct proof of a previous agreement to kill the victim, plus an eyewitness account of how the conspirators effected their plan, was submitted into evidence but disregarded by the trial court. | |||||