This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-02-06 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In the case of Li v. People, [87] a street fight ensued resulting in the death of the victim therein. No conspiracy was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The liability of the accused Li who was shown to have struck the victim's right arm with a baseball bat, resulting in a contusion was, thus, determined by the Court in the following manner:The only injury attributable to Li is the contusion on the victim's right arm that resulted from Li striking [the victim] Arugay with a baseball bat. In view of the victim's supervening death from injuries which cannot be attributed to Li beyond reasonable doubt, the effects of the contusion caused by Li are not mortal or at least lie entirely in the realm of speculation. When there is no evidence of actual incapacity of the offended party for labor or of the required medical attendance, the offense is only slight physical injuries, penalized as follows: | |||||
|
2005-05-26 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Even in criminal law, where the quantum of evidence required is proof beyond reasonable doubt, direct proof is not essential to show conspiracy.[40] It may be deduced from the mode, method and manner by which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the accused themselves when such acts point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest.[41] If it is proved that two or more persons aimed by their acts towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their acts, though apparently independent, were in fact connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiments, then a conspiracy may be inferred though no actual meeting among them to concert is proved.[42] These truisms find more application in administrative proceedings where, as earlier intimated, the quantum of evidence required is substantive evidence, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. | |||||