This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2015-07-29 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In accordance with Section 25 of R.A. 7659, amending Art. 83 of the Revised Penal Code, upon the finality of this decision, let the records of this case be forthwith forwarded to the President of the Philippines for the possible exercise of the pardoning power.[1] | |||||
|
2011-01-19 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Conspiracy can be inferred from and proven by acts of the accused themselves when said acts point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action, and community of interests. Although the same degree of proof required for establishing the crime is required to support a finding of the presence of conspiracy, it need not be proven by direct evidence. Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated.[21] Thus, as found by the RTC, conspiracy by and among accused-appellants was present in this case, as it may be inferred from the following acts of accused-appellants: This was shown when by their account, the three accused left Iloilo together, stayed in Manila for a while, left for Dau, Mabalacat, Pampanga and returned to Manila thereafter. They were together when the apprehending police officers pounced on them near the pier premises on their way back to Iloilo, each of them carrying a travelling bag which contained marijuana. x x x.[22] | |||||
|
2010-08-23 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.[22] The agreement need not be proven by direct evidence;[23] it may be inferred from the conduct of the parties before, during, and after the commission of the offense,[24] pointing to a joint purpose and design, concerted action, and community of interest.[25] Complicity of the accused in the criminal design may be determined by their concerted action at the moment of consummating the crime and the form and manner in which assistance is rendered to the person inflicting the wound.[26] | |||||
|
2003-10-01 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| falsely against her[102] or that it was physically impossible for her to be at the duplex during the meeting. Appellant Maclang denies any involvement, claiming that his indictment was politically motivated and that at the time the alleged conspiracy was brewing, he was already assigned in the Regional Special Office in Camp Delgado, Iloilo City,[103] and later | |||||
|
2003-01-14 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.[40] The agreement need not be proven by direct evidence;[41] it may be inferred from the conduct of the parties before, during and after the commission of the offense, [42] pointing to a joint purpose and design, concerted action, and community of interest.[43] Indeed, jurisprudence consistently tells us that conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated.[44] | |||||