This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2015-07-01 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In Lihaylihay v. People of the Philippines,[13] the Court found petitioners in evident bad faith for affixing their signatures on the disputed documents despite the glaring defects on it and for approving the "ghost" purchases in the amount of P800,000. In Alvizo v. Sandiganbayan,[14] the Court convicted petitioners for violating Section 3(e) of RA 3019 upon a finding of conspiracy in the irregular preparation, processing, and approval of simulated documents, and in the payment to the contractors for the non-existent projects. | |||||
|
2013-07-10 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| In order to establish the existence of conspiracy, unity of purpose and unity in the execution of an unlawful objective by the accused must be proven.[79] Direct proof is not essential to show conspiracy.[80] It is enough that there be proof that two or more persons acted towards the accomplishment of a common unlawful objective through a chain of circumstances, even if there was no actual meeting among them.[81] | |||||
|
2012-07-18 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| In Alvizo v. Sandiganbayan,[78] this Court said: Direct proof is not essential to show conspiracy. It need not be shown that the parties actually came together and agreed in express terms to enter into and pursue a common design. The existence of the assent of minds which is involved in a conspiracy may be, and from the secrecy of the crime, usually must be, inferred by the court from proof of facts and circumstances which, taken together, apparently indicate that they are merely parts of some complete whole. 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 means is proved. Thus, the proof of conspiracy, which is essentially hatched under cover and out of view of others than those directly concerned, is perhaps most frequently made by evidence of a chain of circumstances only. (Emphasis supplied.) | |||||
|
2007-03-22 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| In appeals to this Court from the Sandiganbayan, only questions of law may be raised, not issues of fact.[15] The factual findings of the Sandiganbayan are binding upon this Court. Admittedly, this general rule is subject to some exceptions, among them are: (1) when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmise or conjecture; (2) the inference made is manifestly mistaken; (3) there is a grave abuse of discretion on the part of the lower court or agency; (4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) said findings of facts are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; and (6) the findings of fact by the Sandiganbayan are premised on the absence of evidence on record.[16] However, petitioners failed to establish any of these exceptional circumstances. | |||||
|
2006-12-20 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 may be committed either by dolo, as when the accused acted with evident bad faith or manifest partiality, or by culpa as when the accused committed gross inexcusable negligence. There is "manifest partiality" when there is a clear, notorious or plain inclination or predilection to favor one side or person rather than another.[68] "Evident bad faith" connotes not only bad judgment but also palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do moral obliquity or conscious wrongdoing for some perverse motive or ill will.[69] It contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some motive or self-interest or ill will or for ulterior purposes.[70] "Gross inexcusable negligence" refers to negligence characterized by the want of even the slightest care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected.[71] | |||||
|
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. | |||||
|
2004-08-12 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In the recent case of Alvizo v. Sandiganbayan,[19] we said, | |||||