Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. CASIANO BUNTAG

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 207949 2014-07-23	PEOPLE v. ARMANDO DIONALDO Y EBRON PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Anent the finding that conspiracy attended the commission of the crime, the Court likewise finds the conclusion of the RTC in this regard, as affirmed by the CA, to be well-taken. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it, and when conspiracy is established, the responsibility of the conspirators is collective, not individual, rendering all of them equally liable regardless of the extent of their respective participations.[27] In this relation, direct proof is not essential to establish conspiracy, as it can be presumed from and proven by the acts of the accused pointing to a joint purpose, design, concerted action, and community of interests.[28] Hence, as the factual circumstances in this case clearly show that accused-appellants acted in concert at the time of the commission of the crime and that their acts emanated from the same purpose or common design, showing unity in its execution,[29] the CA, affirming the trial court, correctly ruled that there was conspiracy among them.
	GR No. 198338 2013-02-20	PEOPLE v. P & SUPT. ARTEMIO E. LAMSEN PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
It is settled that direct proof is not essential to establish conspiracy as it may be inferred from the collective acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime. It can be presumed from and proven by acts of the accused themselves when the said acts point to a joint purpose, design, concerted action, and community of interests.[61]
	GR NO. 165884 2007-04-23	CIELITO R. GAN v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
There is no dispute that the prosecution failed to adduce direct evidence showing that petitioner took the money mentioned in the ten informations because no one saw him in flagrante delicto, that is, in the very act of committing a crime. However, the lack or absence of direct evidence does not necessarily mean that the guilt of an accused cannot be proved by evidence other than direct evidence. Direct evidence is not the sole means of establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt since circumstantial evidence, if sufficient, can supplant its absence.[44] The crime charged may also be proved by circumstantial evidence, sometimes referred to as indirect or presumptive evidence.[45] Circumstantial evidence has been defined as that which "goes to prove a fact or series of facts other than the facts in issue, which, if proved, may tend by inference to establish a fact in issue."[46] Circumstantial evidence may be resorted to when to insist on direct testimony would ultimately lead to setting felons free.[47]
	GR NO. 159734 2006-11-30	ROSARIO V. ASTUDILLO v. PEOPLE CARPIO MORALES, J.
In criminal cases, an admission is something less than a confession. It is but a statement of facts by the accused, direct or implied, which do not directly involve an acknowledgment of his guilt or of his criminal intent to commit the offense with which he is bound, against his interests, of the evidence or truths charged. It is an acknowledgment of some facts or circumstances which, in itself, is insufficient to authorize a conviction and which tends only to establish the ultimate facts of guilt. A confession, on the other hand, is an acknowledgment, in express terms, of his guilt of the crime charged.[41]