This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-08-20 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Jurisprudence[25] is instructive of the elements required, in accordance with Article 18 of the RPC, in order that a person may be considered an accomplice, namely, (1) that there be a community of design; that is, knowing the criminal design of the principal by direct participation, he concurs with the latter in his purpose; (2) that he cooperates in the execution by previous or simultaneous act, with the intention of supplying material or moral aid in the execution of the crime in an efficacious way; and (3) that there be a relation between the acts done by the principal and those attributed to the person charged as accomplice. | |||||
|
2004-05-19 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| The trial court ruled that treachery had attended the killing of Cerna; hence, it convicted appellant of murder. Though the assigned errors did not include this and the issue of appropriate penalty and damages, we deem it proper to review them, in line with the principle that an appeal in a criminal case opens the whole proceedings to review. [45] | |||||
|
2004-02-18 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| "The trial court gravely erred in imposing the penalty of death upon the accused-appellant when x x x treachery was not alleged in the Information either as [a] qualifying or as a generic aggravating circumstance."[9] In addition to the issue raised by appellant, we find it proper to review first his conviction for carnapping with homicide, as well as the civil liabilities imposed therefor. Since an appeal in a criminal action opens the whole case for review, it becomes the duty of this Court to correct any error in the appealed judgment, whether it has been assigned or not.[10] | |||||