This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-04-20 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| In the eyes of the law, conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a crime and decide to commit it.[13] For an accused to be validly held to have conspired with her co-accused in committing the crime, her overt acts must evince her active part in the execution of the crime agreed to be committed. The overt acts of each of the conspirators must tend to execute the offense agreed upon, for the merely passive conspirator cannot be held to be still part of the conspiracy without such overt acts, unless such conspirator is the mastermind. Here, Fransdilla was satisfactorily shown not to have been a mere passive co-conspirator, but an active one who had facilitated the access into the house by representing herself as an employee of the POEA. In that respect, it is not always required to establish that two or more persons met and explicitly entered into the agreement to commit the crime by laying down the details of how their unlawful scheme or objective would be carried out.[14] Conspiracy can also be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense is perpetrated, or can be inferred from the acts of the several accused evincing their joint or common purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest.[15] Once conspiracy is established, the act of each conspirator is the act of all. | |||||
|
2013-06-10 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated; or from the acts of the accused evincing a joint or common purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest.[32] | |||||