This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2015-02-25 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Lastly, the trial court pronounced that Alquizola was not part of the conspiracy because his participation in the crime was uncertain,[66] citing People v. Lobrigo.[67] It found that his participation was not in furtherance of the plan, if any, to commit the crime of rape.[68] The Court, however, finds that the RTC erred in ruling that Alquizola's liability is not of a conspirator, but that of a mere accomplice. To establish conspiracy, it is not essential that there be proof as to previous agreement to commit a crime, it being sufficient that the malefactors shall have acted in concert pursuant to the same objective. Conspiracy is proved if there is convincing evidence to sustain a finding that the malefactors committed an offense in furtherance of a common objective pursued in concert.[69] Proof of conspiracy need not even rest on direct evidence, as the same may be inferred from the collective conduct of the parties before, during or after the commission of the crime indicating a common understanding among them with respect to the commission of the offense.[70] | |||||
|
2014-05-05 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Verily, the moment it is established that the malefactors conspired and confederated in the commission of the felony proved, collective liability of the accused conspirators attaches by reason of the conspiracy, and the court shall not speculate nor even investigate as to the actual degree of participation of each of the perpetrators present at the scene of the crime. x x x.[162] (Emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2010-10-13 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Under the law, a conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.[17] Yet, the State did not have to prove the petitioners' previous agreement to commit the murder,[18] because their conspiracy was deduced from the mode and manner in which they had perpetrated their criminal act.[19] They had acted in concert in assaulting Llona, with their individual acts manifesting a community of purpose and design to achieve their evil end. As it is, all the conspirators in a crime are liable as co-principals.[20] Thus, they cannot now successfully assail their conviction as co-principals in murder. | |||||
|
2008-03-04 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Conspiracy is not an element of the crime of murder or homicide. Conspiracy assumes pivotal importance in the determination of the liability of the perpetrators.[58] Thus, if the evidence adduced by the prosecution fails to prove conspiracy, only those whose liability can be established can be held liable for the crime charged. In the case under consideration, the prosecution was able to prove that petitioner was the one who stabbed the victim. But since conspiracy was not shown in the instant case, the other accused cannot be convicted because their respective liabilities were not satisfactorily proved as well. Petitioner alone is liable for the death of the victim. | |||||
|
2004-04-14 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| It is not necessary to prove a previous agreement to commit a crime if there is proof that the malefactors have acted in concert and in pursuance of the common objectives. Direct proof is not essential to show conspiracy since it is by its nature often planned in utmost secrecy and it can seldom be proved by direct evidence.[52] Conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused themselves when such point to a joint purpose and design.[53] Complicity may be determined by concert of action at the moment of consummating the crime and the form and manner in which assistance is rendered to the person inflicting the fatal wound.[54] | |||||