Lawyerly

GR No. 204644

2015-02-11

LEONEN, J.

Consequently, the estafa had already been consummated when "Linda Chua" allegedly pawned the jewelry on June 17, 1994. Benito, who was allegedly "Linda Chua," cannot be held criminally liable with Agbulos. "There can be no ex post facto conspiracy to do that which has already been done and consummated."[70]

GR No. 209373

2014-07-30

JOEL YONGCO v. PEOPLE

VELASCO JR., J.

In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. Once conspiracy is established, all the conspirators are answerable as co-principals regardless of the extent or degree of their participation.[13] The guilt of one is the guilt of all. It is common design which is the essence of conspiracy conspirators may act separately or together in different manners but always leading to the same unlawful result. The character and effect of conspiracy are not to be adjudged by dismembering it and viewing its separate parts but only by looking at it as a whole acts done to give effect to conspiracy may be, in fact, wholly innocent acts.[14] Applying this doctrine in the case at bench, it can reasonably be concluded that despite Lañojan's lack of physical participation in hauling the items to Tangian's truck and bringing them to the junk shop, he can still be liable for Qualified Theft via conspiracy. All told, there is no cogent reason for us to disturb the findings of the appellate court, affirmatory of those of the trial court.

GR No. 171328

2011-02-16

LYZAH SY FRANCO v. PEOPLE

DEL CASTILLO, J.

and decide to commit it.[11] "Conspiracy must be proven on the same quantum of evidence as the felony subject of the agreement of the parties. [It] may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence consisting of acts, words, or conduct of the alleged conspirators [prior to], during and after the commission of the felony to achieve a common design or purpose."[12]

GR No. 182147

2010-12-15

ARNEL U. TY v. NBI SUPERVISING AGENT MARVIN E. DE JEMIL

VELASCO JR., J.

Chan v. Secretary of Justice[50] delineated the proper remedy from the determination of the Secretary of Justice. Therein, the Court, after expounding on the policy of non-interference in the determination of the existence of probable cause absent any showing of arbitrariness on the part of the public prosecutor and the Secretary of Justice, however, concluded, citing Alcaraz v. Gonzalez[51] and Preferred Home Specialties, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[52] that an aggrieved party from the resolution of the Secretary of Justice may directly resort to judicial review on the ground of grave abuse of discretion, thus: x x x [T]he findings of the Justice Secretary may be reviewed through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 based on the allegation that he acted with grave abuse of discretion. This remedy is available to the aggrieved party.[53] (Emphasis supplied.)

GR No. 171536

2009-04-07

APRIL JOY ASETRE v. JUNEL ASETRE

QUISUMBING, J.

Under Article 8[34] of the Revised Penal Code, there is conspiracy if two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy must be proven during trial with the same quantum of evidence as the felony subject of the agreement of the parties. Conspiracy may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence consisting of acts, words, or conduct of the alleged conspirators before, during and after the commission of the felony to achieve a common design or purpose.[35]

GR No. 174899

2008-09-11

RAMON L. UY v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Fraud, in its general sense, is deemed to comprise anything calculated to deceive, including all acts, omissions and concealment involving a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust or confidence justly reposed, resulting in damage to another; or by which another is unduly and unconscientiously taken advantage of another. It is a generic term embracing all multifarious means which human ingenuity can device, and which are resorted to by one individual to secure an advantage over another by false suggestions or by suppression of truth; and includes all forms of surprise, trick, cunning, dissembling and any other unfair way by which another is cheated. Deceit is a species of fraud.[51] And deceit is the false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations; or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives or is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it, to his legal injury. The false pretense or fraudulent act must be committed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud, it being essential that such false statement or representation constitutes the very cause or the only motive which induces the offended party to part with his money.[52] In the absence of such requisite, any subsequent act of the accused, however fraudulent and suspicious it might appear, cannot serve as basis for prosecution for estafa under the said provision.[53]

GR No. 147782

2008-06-25

JUANITA A. AQUINO

VELASCO JR., J.

It is common design which is the essence of conspiracy--conspirators may act separately or together, in different manners but always leading to the same unlawful result. The character and effect of conspiracy are not to be adjudged by dismembering it and viewing its separate parts but only by looking at it as a whole--acts done to give effect to conspiracy may be, in fact, wholly innocent acts.[22] Once proved, the act of one becomes the act of all. All the conspirators are answerable as co-principals regardless of the extent or degree of their participation.

GR No. 172500

2007-09-21

LILIBETH ARICHETA v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Fraud, in its general sense, is deemed to comprise anything calculated to deceive, including all acts, omissions and concealment involving a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust or confidence justly reposed, resulting in damage to another, or by which an undue and unconscientious advantage is taken of another. It is a generic term embracing all multifarious means which human ingenuity can device, and which are resorted to by one individual to secure an advantage over another by false suggestions or by suppression of truth; and includes all forms of surprise, trick, cunning, dissembling and any other unfair way by which another is cheated. Deceit is a species of fraud.[15] And deceit is the false representation of a matter of fact whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed which deceives or is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it, to his legal injury. The false pretense or fraudulent act must be committed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud,[16] it being essential that such false statement or representation constitutes the very cause or the only motive which induces the offended party to part with his money. In the absence of such requisite, any subsequent act of the accused, however fraudulent and suspicious it might appear, cannot serve as basis for prosecution for estafa under the said provision.[17]

GR No. 175942

2007-09-13

PEOPLE v. MARLON DELIM

GARCIA, J.

Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a crime and decide to commit it.[32] It may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence consisting of acts, words, or conduct of the alleged conspirators before, during and after the commission of the felony to achieve a common design or purpose.[33] Hence, common design is the essence of conspiracy.

AM NO. RTJ-07-2059

2007-08-10

AUGUSTO C. CAESAR v. JUDGE ROMEO M. GOMEZ

NACHURA, J.

The gravamen of the felony is an intent to deceive, or fraudulent intent. Intent, being a state of the mind, may be proved by words or by the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the transaction, subject of the case, independent of and distinct from the non-compliance with the promise or representation of the accused.[18]

GR NO. 167724

2006-06-27

BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK v. MARGARITA VDA. DE COSCOLLUELA

CALLEJO, SR., J.

On the first issue, we agree with petitioner's contention that the general rule is that an order denying a motion to dismiss or demurrer to evidence is interlocutory and is not appealable. Consequently, defendant must go to trial and adduce its evidence, and appeal, in due course, from an adverse decision of the trial court. However, the rule admits of exceptions. Where the denial by the trial court of a motion to dismiss or demurrer to evidence is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction, the aggrieved party may assail the order of dismissal on a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. A wide breadth of discretion is granted in certiorari proceedings in the interest of substantial justice and to prevent a substantial wrong.[33] As the Court held in Preferred Home Specialties, Inc. v. Court of Appeals:[34] It bears stressing that a writ of certiorari is of the highest utility and importance for curbing excessive jurisdiction and correcting errors and most essential to the safety of the people and the public welfare. Its scope has been broadened and extended, and is now one of the recognized modes for the correction of errors by this Court. The cases in which it will lie cannot be defined. To do so would be to destroy its comprehensiveness and limit its usefulness.

	GR No. 204644 2015-02-11	ANGELITA CRUZ BENITO v. PEOPLE LEONEN, J.
Consequently, the estafa had already been consummated when "Linda Chua" allegedly pawned the jewelry on June 17, 1994. Benito, who was allegedly "Linda Chua," cannot be held criminally liable with Agbulos. "There can be no ex post facto conspiracy to do that which has already been done and consummated."[70]
	GR No. 209373 2014-07-30	JOEL YONGCO v. PEOPLE VELASCO JR., J.
In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. Once conspiracy is established, all the conspirators are answerable as co-principals regardless of the extent or degree of their participation.[13] The guilt of one is the guilt of all. It is common design which is the essence of conspiracy conspirators may act separately or together in different manners but always leading to the same unlawful result. The character and effect of conspiracy are not to be adjudged by dismembering it and viewing its separate parts but only by looking at it as a whole acts done to give effect to conspiracy may be, in fact, wholly innocent acts.[14] Applying this doctrine in the case at bench, it can reasonably be concluded that despite Lañojan's lack of physical participation in hauling the items to Tangian's truck and bringing them to the junk shop, he can still be liable for Qualified Theft via conspiracy. All told, there is no cogent reason for us to disturb the findings of the appellate court, affirmatory of those of the trial court.
	GR No. 171328 2011-02-16	LYZAH SY FRANCO v. PEOPLE DEL CASTILLO, J.
and decide to commit it.[11] "Conspiracy must be proven on the same quantum of evidence as the felony subject of the agreement of the parties. [It] may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence consisting of acts, words, or conduct of the alleged conspirators [prior to], during and after the commission of the felony to achieve a common design or purpose."[12]
	GR No. 182147 2010-12-15	ARNEL U. TY v. NBI SUPERVISING AGENT MARVIN E. DE JEMIL VELASCO JR., J.
Chan v. Secretary of Justice[50] delineated the proper remedy from the determination of the Secretary of Justice. Therein, the Court, after expounding on the policy of non-interference in the determination of the existence of probable cause absent any showing of arbitrariness on the part of the public prosecutor and the Secretary of Justice, however, concluded, citing Alcaraz v. Gonzalez[51] and Preferred Home Specialties, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[52] that an aggrieved party from the resolution of the Secretary of Justice may directly resort to judicial review on the ground of grave abuse of discretion, thus: x x x [T]he findings of the Justice Secretary may be reviewed through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 based on the allegation that he acted with grave abuse of discretion. This remedy is available to the aggrieved party.[53] (Emphasis supplied.)
	GR No. 171536 2009-04-07	APRIL JOY ASETRE v. JUNEL ASETRE QUISUMBING, J.
Under Article 8[34] of the Revised Penal Code, there is conspiracy if two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy must be proven during trial with the same quantum of evidence as the felony subject of the agreement of the parties. Conspiracy may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence consisting of acts, words, or conduct of the alleged conspirators before, during and after the commission of the felony to achieve a common design or purpose.[35]
	GR No. 174899 2008-09-11	RAMON L. UY v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Fraud, in its general sense, is deemed to comprise anything calculated to deceive, including all acts, omissions and concealment involving a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust or confidence justly reposed, resulting in damage to another; or by which another is unduly and unconscientiously taken advantage of another. It is a generic term embracing all multifarious means which human ingenuity can device, and which are resorted to by one individual to secure an advantage over another by false suggestions or by suppression of truth; and includes all forms of surprise, trick, cunning, dissembling and any other unfair way by which another is cheated. Deceit is a species of fraud.[51] And deceit is the false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations; or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives or is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it, to his legal injury. The false pretense or fraudulent act must be committed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud, it being essential that such false statement or representation constitutes the very cause or the only motive which induces the offended party to part with his money.[52] In the absence of such requisite, any subsequent act of the accused, however fraudulent and suspicious it might appear, cannot serve as basis for prosecution for estafa under the said provision.[53]
	GR No. 147782 2008-06-25	JUANITA A. AQUINO VELASCO JR., J.
It is common design which is the essence of conspiracy--conspirators may act separately or together, in different manners but always leading to the same unlawful result. The character and effect of conspiracy are not to be adjudged by dismembering it and viewing its separate parts but only by looking at it as a whole--acts done to give effect to conspiracy may be, in fact, wholly innocent acts.[22] Once proved, the act of one becomes the act of all. All the conspirators are answerable as co-principals regardless of the extent or degree of their participation.
	GR No. 172500 2007-09-21	LILIBETH ARICHETA v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Fraud, in its general sense, is deemed to comprise anything calculated to deceive, including all acts, omissions and concealment involving a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust or confidence justly reposed, resulting in damage to another, or by which an undue and unconscientious advantage is taken of another. It is a generic term embracing all multifarious means which human ingenuity can device, and which are resorted to by one individual to secure an advantage over another by false suggestions or by suppression of truth; and includes all forms of surprise, trick, cunning, dissembling and any other unfair way by which another is cheated. Deceit is a species of fraud.[15] And deceit is the false representation of a matter of fact whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed which deceives or is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it, to his legal injury. The false pretense or fraudulent act must be committed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud,[16] it being essential that such false statement or representation constitutes the very cause or the only motive which induces the offended party to part with his money. In the absence of such requisite, any subsequent act of the accused, however fraudulent and suspicious it might appear, cannot serve as basis for prosecution for estafa under the said provision.[17]
	GR No. 175942 2007-09-13	PEOPLE v. MARLON DELIM GARCIA, J.
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a crime and decide to commit it.[32] It may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence consisting of acts, words, or conduct of the alleged conspirators before, during and after the commission of the felony to achieve a common design or purpose.[33] Hence, common design is the essence of conspiracy.
	AM NO. RTJ-07-2059 2007-08-10	AUGUSTO C. CAESAR v. JUDGE ROMEO M. GOMEZ NACHURA, J.
The gravamen of the felony is an intent to deceive, or fraudulent intent. Intent, being a state of the mind, may be proved by words or by the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the transaction, subject of the case, independent of and distinct from the non-compliance with the promise or representation of the accused.[18]
	GR NO. 167724 2006-06-27	BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK v. MARGARITA VDA. DE COSCOLLUELA CALLEJO, SR., J.
On the first issue, we agree with petitioner's contention that the general rule is that an order denying a motion to dismiss or demurrer to evidence is interlocutory and is not appealable. Consequently, defendant must go to trial and adduce its evidence, and appeal, in due course, from an adverse decision of the trial court. However, the rule admits of exceptions. Where the denial by the trial court of a motion to dismiss or demurrer to evidence is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction, the aggrieved party may assail the order of dismissal on a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. A wide breadth of discretion is granted in certiorari proceedings in the interest of substantial justice and to prevent a substantial wrong.[33] As the Court held in Preferred Home Specialties, Inc. v. Court of Appeals:[34] It bears stressing that a writ of certiorari is of the highest utility and importance for curbing excessive jurisdiction and correcting errors and most essential to the safety of the people and the public welfare. Its scope has been broadened and extended, and is now one of the recognized modes for the correction of errors by this Court. The cases in which it will lie cannot be defined. To do so would be to destroy its comprehensiveness and limit its usefulness.

PREFERRED HOME SPECIALTIES v. CA