This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2008-09-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.[34] The agreement may be deduced from the manner in which the offense was committed; or from the acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime indubitably pointing to and indicating a joint purpose, a concert of action and a community of interest. It is not essential that there be proof of the previous agreement to commit the crime. It is sufficient that the form and manner in which the attack was accomplished clearly indicate unity of action and purpose.[35] | |||||
|
2001-12-03 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In conspiracy, the commission of a crime is through the joint act or intent of two or more persons.[35] To establish conspiracy, however, it is not essential that there be proof of a previous agreement to commit the crime. It is sufficient that the form and manner in which the attack was accomplished clearly indicate unity of action and purpose or a community of interest.[36] | |||||
|
2001-10-17 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Concerning treachery, however, it was shown that: (1) the means of execution employed gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and (2) the means of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted.[55] These twin requisites were adequately proved. | |||||
|
2001-02-05 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| "The agreement may be deduced from the manner in which the offense was committed; or from the acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime indubitably pointing to and indicating a joint purpose, a concert of action and a community of interest. It is not essential that there be proof of the previous agreement to commit the crime. It is sufficient that the form and manner in which the attack was accomplished clearly indicate unity of action and purpose."[24] | |||||
|
2000-07-05 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| Unquestionably, and accused-appellant does not allege otherwise, conspiracy attended the killing of the victim. Conspiracy to exist does not require an agreement for an appreciable period prior to the occurrence.[19] It is sufficient that the form and manner in which the attack was accomplished clearly indicate unity of action and purpose.[20] In the case at bar, the presence of Luter, Sr. at the scene of the crime indubitably shows his complicity with his three sons in perpetuating the killing of Oscar. Polinar, Jr. positively identified Luter, Sr. as part of the group which surrounded Oscar and then gave chase to the victim towards the latter's house. A few minutes thereafter, the Orculas went to the house of Polinar, Jr. and the latter categorically testified that it was Luter, Sr. who approached him and inquired about his father and uncle. Alimasac was likewise unwavering in his testimony that he saw Luter, Sr. together with the other accused near the place where the victim's body was found. It has never been denied that bad blood existed between the Orculas and the victim because of a boundary dispute involving their properties and, hence, there was a motive for the accused in killing the victim.[21] Well-settled is the rule that motive can be essential to conviction where the evidence on the commission of the crime is circumstantial.[22] Conspiracy having been established, all the conspirators are liable as co-principals regardless of the manner and extent of their participation since in the contemplation of the law, the act of one is the act of all.[23] | |||||