This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-02-25 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| It must be shown that the person concerned has performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity.[134] In fact, mere knowledge, acquiescence or approval of the act, without the cooperation or approval to cooperate, is not sufficient to prove conspiracy.[135] There must be positive and conclusive factual evidence indicating the existence of conspiracy,[136] and not simple inferences, conjectures and speculations[137] speciously sustained because "[i]t cannot be mere coincidence."[138] | |||||
|
2004-04-14 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Proving conspiracy is a dicey matter, especially difficult in cases such as the present wherein the criminal acts arose spontaneously, as opposed to instances wherein the participants would have the opportunity to orchestrate a more deliberate plan. Spontaneity alone does not preclude the establishment of conspiracy, which after all, can be consummated in a moment's notice through a single word of assent to a proposal or an unambiguous handshake. Yet it is more difficult to presume conspiracy in extemporaneous outbursts of violence; hence, the demand that it be established by positive evidence. A conviction premised on a finding of conspiracy must be founded on facts, not on mere inferences and presumption.[51] | |||||
|
2000-05-31 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, the behavior of Jenny Camacho in running towards her house instead of ensuring that her husband was safe, and in failing to immediately charge petitioner with the crime, cannot taint her credibility as a witness. Jenny testified that when informed of her husband's death, she lost consciousness. Witnesses of startling occurrences react differently depending upon their situation and state of mind and there is no standard form of human behavioral response when one is confronted with strange, startling or frightful experience.[14] The workings of human mind placed under emotional stress are unpredictable and people react differently - some may shout, some may faint and others may be shocked into insensibility.[15] Further, it is settled that delay or vacillation in reporting a crime does not necessarily impair the credibility of the witness and render her testimony unworthy.[16] | |||||