Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ALEJANDRO MARQUITA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 136502 2000-12-15	RUFINA GREFALDE v. LINDY TVS ENRIQUEZ GONZAGA-REYES, J.
Although a conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner by which the offense was perpetrated,[34]it must, like the crime itself, be proven beyond reasonable doubt.[35] Mere knowledge, acquiescence or approval is not enough without a showing that the participation was intentional and with a view of furthering a common criminal design or purpose.[36] In the instant case, the prosecution had nothing to implicate Enriquez, Suelto and Diaz with but their signatures on the documents[37], which served as attestations that materials which met the desired specifications were received in the jobsites, and their daily time records (DTRs), which showed that at the time the questioned deliveries were supposed to have arrived they were not in the jobsites but in their respective offices. The prosecution used the DTRs to prove that Enriquez, Suelto and Diaz did not actually witness the deliveries, contrary to their testimonies.
	GR No. 121971 2000-10-16	PEOPLE v. EX-MAYOR APOLINARIO PERALTA QUISUMBING, J.
Appellants Edra and Franco were convicted on the basis of conspiracy. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement to commit a crime and decide to commit it. Like the crime itself, the conspiracy must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.[25] Considering that the conspiratorial acts are done in secrecy often resulting in the paucity of hard evidence against the conspirators, proving the existence of a conspiracy is a difficult burden for the prosecution to discharge.
	GR No. 123176 2000-10-13	PEOPLE v. MELCHOR RAFAEL Y LEGASPI QUISUMBING, J.
Appellant was convicted of the crime of murder and frustrated murder because of the alleged conspiracy among the three accused. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a crime and decide to commit it.[19] Conspiracy, like the crime itself, must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.[20] Mere presence, knowledge, acquiescence to 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.[21]