This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-04-22 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| To reiterate, in order to hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, he must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity. Conspiracy can be inferred from, and established by, the acts of the accused themselves when said acts point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interests. What is determinative is proof establishing that the accused were animated by one and the same purpose.[28] There must be intentional participation in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose. Conspiracy must, like the crime itself, be proven beyond reasonable doubt[29] for it is a facile device by which an accused may be ensnared and kept within the penal fold. Suppositions based on mere presumptions and not on solid facts do not constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt.[30] | |||||
|
2015-01-28 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Since there is no perfected sale between the parties, respondent had no obligation to make payment through the check; nor did it possess the right to deliver earnest money to petitioner in order to bind the latter to a sale. As contemplated under Art. 1482 of the Civil Code, "there must first be a perfected contract of sale before we can speak of earnest money."[35] "Where the parties merely exchanged offers and counter-offers, no contract is perfected since they did not yet give their consent to such offers. Earnest money applies to a perfected sale."[36] | |||||
|
2013-01-28 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Notably, a violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 may be committed either by dolo, as when the accused acted with evident bad faith or manifest partiality, or by culpa as when the accused committed gross inexcusable negligence.[56] Unlike in the commission of ordinary felonies however, the law requires that the intent or negligence, which must attend the commission of the prohibited acts under Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019, should meet the gravity required by law. Thus, in construing these phrases, the Court observed that bad faith or partiality, on the one hand, and negligence, on the other hand, per se are not enough for one to be held criminally liable under the law; that the bad faith or partiality is evident or manifest, or, that the negligent act or omission is gross and inexcusable must be shown.[57] | |||||