This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2003-10-01 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| respective class, shall be liable severally (in solidum) among themselves for their quotas, and subsidiarily liable for those of the other persons liable." Hence, the trial court did not err in declaring that appellants' liability for the civil indemnity, as principals, is solidary[118] or joint and several. The trial court did not err in awarding P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for the death of Roberta Cokin. | |||||
|
2001-01-16 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| The essence of conspiracy is community of criminal intent. It exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and perform overt acts to commit it.[40] The overt act may consist of active participation in the actual commission of the criminal act, or it may be in the form of moral assistance such as the exertion of moral ascendancy over the other co-conspirators by moving them to implement the conspiracy.[41] Conspiracy may be proven by direct evidence, or deduced from the manner in which the offense was committed, as when the accused acted in concert to achieve the same objective.[42] A finding of conspiracy results in grave consequences to the accused, as each is held responsible for the acts of all the co-conspirators which proceeded from the same criminal intent. Thus, it is required that conspiracy be established as any element of the crime and proven beyond reasonable doubt.[43] | |||||
|
2000-11-23 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| We note that the trial court awarded exemplary damages. Exemplary damages are to be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances.[34] In the absence of any generic aggravating circumstance which attended the commission of the crime, the award of exemplary damages must be deleted for lack of basis. | |||||
|
2000-10-04 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. It may be deduced from the manner in which the offense is committed, as when the accused acted in concert to achieve the same objective.[11] In order to hold an accused liable as co-principal by reason of conspiracy, he must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or in furtherance of conspiracy. The overt act may consist of active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself or it may consist of moral assistance to his co-conspirators by exerting moral ascendancy over the other co-conspirators by moving them to execute or implement the conspiracy.[12] Mere presence at the scene of the incident, knowledge of the plan or acquiescence thereto are not sufficient grounds to hold a person liable as a conspirator. As such, conspiracy must be established as any element of the crime and evidence of the conspiracy must be beyond reasonable doubt.[13] Neither joint nor simultaneous action is per se sufficient indicium of conpiracy, unless proved to have been motivated by a common design.[14] | |||||