This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2011-02-09 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Conspiracy need not be shown by direct proof of an agreement of the parties to commit the crime,[39] as it can be inferred from the acts of the accused which clearly manifest a concurrence of wills, a common intent or design to commit a crime.[40] In this case, Ong administered the oaths to Galeos and Rivera in the subject SALN not just once, but three times, a clear manifestation that he concurred with the making of the untruthful statement therein concerning relatives in the government service. | |||||
|
2010-06-29 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| For evident premeditation to be considered, the following must be established: (1) the time when the accused determined (conceived) to commit the crime; (2) an overt act manifestly indicating that he clung to his determination to commit the crime (kill his victim); and (3) a sufficient lapse of time between the decision to commit the crime and the execution thereof to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequences of his act.[31] Premeditation presupposes a deliberate planning of the crime before executing it. The execution of the criminal act, in other words, must be preceded by cool thought and reflection. As here, there must be showing of a plan or preparation to kill, or proof that the accused meditated and reflected upon his decision to execute the crime.[32] | |||||
|
2006-08-31 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Like any other circumstance that qualifies a killing as murder, evident premeditation must be established by clear and positive evidence;[14] that is, by proof beyond reasonable doubt.[15] The essence of premeditation is that the execution of the act was preceded by cool thought and reflections upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. To be considered, the following elements must be proven: (1) the time when the accused decided to commit the crime; (2) an overt act manifestly indicating that he has clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between the decision and the execution, to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequences of his act.[16] | |||||
|
2004-05-27 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Conspiracy is deemed to arise when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy need not be shown by direct proof of an agreement of the parties to commit the crime.[56] It may be inferred from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated, or from the acts of the accused before, during, and after the crime which point to a joint design, concerted action and commonality of sentiment or interest.[57] Once proved, the act of one becomes the act of all. All the conspirators are answerable as co-principals regardless of the extent or degree of their participation. | |||||
|
2002-04-22 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| We have held that for treachery to exist, there must be evidence showing that the mode of attack was consciously or deliberately adopted by the culprit to make it impossible or difficult for the person attacked to defend himself or retaliate.[19] Considering that the eyewitness did not see the onset of the assault, it cannot be said that the appellant had deliberately adopted a method or mode that deprived the victim of an opportunity to retaliate. Treachery must be proved by clear and convincing evidence as clearly as the crime itself. Otherwise, it cannot be appreciated.[20] | |||||
|
2002-04-02 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| xxx. In criminal law, flight means an act of evading the course of justice by voluntarily withdrawing oneself to avoid arrest or detention or the institution or continuance of criminal proceedings. The unexplained flight of the accused person may, as a general rule, be taken as evidence having tendency to establish his guilt. In fact, we have held that once an accused escapes from prison or confinement or jumps bail or flees to a foreign country, he loses his standing in court, and unless he surrenders or submits himself to its jurisdiction, he is deemed to have waived any right to seek relief from the court.[13] Therefore, we find that Rodney Dumalahay, Allan Halasan and Remegio Fuentes are criminally liable as principals for the killing of Layagon and Escalante. Their respective roles in the crime show that they acted in conspiracy. Conspiracy is deemed to arise when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. In the case at bar, it was proved that Dumalahay planned the execution and Halasan agreed to carry out the same. As regards Fuentes, his acts before, during, and after the crime show that he shared in the joint design, concerted action and common sentiment of his two co-accused. Conspiracy having been proved, the act of one becomes the act of all. All the conspirators are answerable as co-principals regardless of the extent or degree of their participation.[14] | |||||