This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2010-12-14 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidences, leaves the minds of the [judgesin that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, of the truth of the charge; a certainty that convinces and directs the understanding, and satisfies the reason and judgment of those who are bound to act conscientiously upon it.[141] | |||||
|
2010-07-26 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| While there is no showing of direct evidence that accused-appellant agreed with De Hitta to commit the crime, their acts and the attendant circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime disclose a common design that would make all of them co-principals in the crime committed. As already cited direct evidence is not essential in proving conspiracy.[16] The contemporaneous acts of Desuyo with De Hitta all point to a unity of acts and a common design making Desuyo a co-principal. | |||||
|
2009-03-13 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The burden of proving the allegation of conspiracy rests on the prosecution, but settled jurisprudence holds that conspiracy may be proven other than by direct evidence.[66] In People v. Pagalasan,[67] the Court expounded on why direct proof of prior agreement is not necessary:After all, secrecy and concealment are essential features of a successful conspiracy. Conspiracies are clandestine in nature. It may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime, showing that they had acted with a common purpose and design. Conspiracy may be implied if it is proved that two or more persons aimed their acts towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their combined acts, though apparently independent of each other, were in fact, connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment. 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 complicity. There must be intentional participation in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose.[68] | |||||
|
2009-02-10 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| We would like to stress that the Constitution guarantees that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. This means proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is present when, after the comparison and consideration of all the evidence adduced, the minds of the judges are left in a condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction, a moral certainty, of the truth of the charge, a certainty that convinces and directs the understanding, and satisfies the reason and judgment of those who are bound to act conscientiously upon it.[46] To be sure, proof beyond reasonable doubt does not demand absolute certainty and the exclusion of all possibility of error.[47] | |||||
|
2004-09-07 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| "x x x. By a wrongful act or a willful omission and intending the effects with natural necessity arise knowing from such act or omission, [Respondent Palanca] on account of his blood relation, first degree cousins, trust, interdependence and intimacy is guilty of intrinsic fraud [sic]. x x x."[20] Thereupon, petitioner prayed, among others, for a judgment (1) nullifying the homestead patent applications of Respondents Agustin, Fresnillo and Gapilango as well as Homestead Patent No. 145927 and OCT No. G-7089 in the name of Respondent Palanca; and (2) ordering the director of the Land Management Bureau to reconvey the Sombrero Island to petitioner.[21] | |||||