This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-01-18 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.[31] Conspiracy is either express or implied. Thus, the State does not always have to prove the actual agreement to commit the crime in order to establish conspiracy, for it is enough to show that the accused acted in concert to achieve a common purpose. Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner of the commission of the offense, or from the acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime indubitably pointing to a joint purpose, a concert of action and a community of interest.[32] Where the acts of the accused collectively and individually demonstrate the existence of a common design towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful purpose, conspiracy is evident, and all the perpetrators will be liable as principals.[33] Once a conspiracy is established, each co-conspirator is as criminally liable as the others, for the act of one is the act of all. A co-conspirator does not have to participate in every detail of the execution; neither does he have to know the exact part performed by the co-conspirator in the execution of the criminal act.[34] | |||||
|
2001-02-19 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The alleged inconsistencies in complainant's affidavit dated March 4, 1998 are but minor and inconsequential. They bolster the truthfulness of her claim rather than detract from it.[12] In any event, it has been held that whenever there is inconsistency between the affidavit and the testimony of a witness in court, the testimony commands greater weight. This is because affidavits, which are taken ex parte, are inferior to testimony given in court, the former being incomplete and oftentimes inaccurate because of suggestions or want of specific inquiries.[13] | |||||
|
2000-07-24 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| justice, accused-appellant's denial of commission of the crime and imputation of the same to another person is demolished to obscurity.[48] Besides, accused-appellant's imputation of the crime to another malefactor was heard of only during his testimony[49] and was never raised before the police authorities during the investigation. Clearly, his bare denial amounts to nothing more than negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law.[50] With respect to treachery, it is our view that the prosecution has convincingly established the same. Jurisprudence has required that treachery must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, or as conclusively as the killing itself.[51] For treachery | |||||