This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2007-02-06 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.[72] Conspiracy as a basis for conviction must rest on nothing less than a moral certainty.[73] Considering the far-reaching consequences of criminal conspiracy, the same degree of proof necessary in establishing the crime is required to support the attendance thereof, i.e., it must be shown to exist as clearly and convincingly as the commission of the offense itself.[74] Thus, it has been held that neither joint nor simultaneous actions is per se sufficient proof of conspiracy.[75] | |||||
|
2006-01-20 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Every person accused has the right to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence stands as a fundamental principle of both constitutional and criminal law. Thus, the prosecution has the burden of proving every single fact establishing guilt. Every vestige of doubt having a rational basis must be removed. The defense of the accused, even if weak, is no reason to convict. Within this framework, the prosecution must prove its case beyond any hint of uncertainty. The defense need not even speak at all. The presumption of innocence is more than sufficient.[27] We apply in this case the equipoise rule. Where the evidence on an issue of fact is in issue or there is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates, the party having the burden of proof loses.[28] Hence: | |||||
|
2005-02-17 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Conspiracy must be established, not by conjectures, but by positive and conclusive evidence.[37] Conspiracy transcends mere companionship and mere presence at the scene of the crime does not in itself amount to conspiracy.[38] Even knowledge, acquiescence in or agreement to cooperate, is not enough to constitute one as a party to a conspiracy, absent any active participation in the commission of the crime with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose.[39] | |||||
|
2004-06-15 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.[44] It need not be established by direct evidence. It may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during or after the commission of the crime which, when taken together, would be enough to reveal a community of criminal design.[45] Proof of previous engagement among the malefactors to commit the crime would be unnecessary to establish conspiracy when by their overt acts it would be deduced that they conducted themselves in concert with one another.[46] | |||||
|
2004-03-04 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The Court finds appellant Linanga's claim that the trial court erroneously held that conspiracy existed in this case to be without merit. Conspiracy exists among perpetrators of a crime when there is unity in purpose and intention in the commission of a crime. To establish conspiracy, direct evidence of a previous plan or agreement to commit assault is not required, as it is sufficient that at the time of the aggression, all the accused manifested by their acts a common intent or desire to attack.[71] Indeed, conspiracy may be inferred when by their acts, two or more persons proceed towards the accomplishment of the same felonious objective, with each doing his act, so that their acts though seemingly independent were in fact connected, showing a closeness of former association and concurrence of sentiment.[72] | |||||
|
2004-03-04 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Having established conspiracy, the trial court correctly convicted the appellants for the crime of murder as it is no longer necessary to determine who among the malefactors rendered the fatal blow.[74] As further elucidated by the Court in People vs. Natividad[75], to wit: To hold one as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, it must be shown that he performed an overt act in pursuance of or furtherance of the conspiracy, although the acts performed might have been distinct and separate. This overt act may consist of active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself, or it may consist of moral assistance to his co-conspirators by being present at the time of the commission of the crime, or by exerting a moral ascendance over the other co-conspirators by moving them to execute or implement the criminal plan. Once conspiracy is established, all the conspirators are answerable as co-principals regardless of their degree of participation, for in the contemplation of the law, the act of one becomes the act of all. It matters not who among the accused inflicted the fatal blow to the victim.[76] (Emphasis supplied). The trial court did not err in appreciating the presence of treachery in the fatal stabbing of Celestino. | |||||