This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2004-06-03 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| We also affirm the trial court's finding that there was conspiracy among the three appellants. Their conduct during the entrapment reveals a common design or a community of interest among them.[61] The clear fact is that they acted in concert in committing the crime, thus: (a) appellant Salamat carried the black shoulder bag containing the seven sachets of shabu; (b) appellant Abubakar asked PO1 Carpentero if she was ready with the money; (c) appellant Bandang handed the black shoulder bag to PO1 Carpentero; and (d) appellant Abubakar received the boodle money from PO1 Carpentero. All these acts clearly demonstrate the presence of conspiracy. The existence of a conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence because it may be inferred from the parties' conduct indicating a common understanding among themselves with respect to the commission of the crime. | |||||