This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-06-17 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.[38] Although direct proof is not essential to establish conspiracy, it must be established by positive and conclusive evidence.[39] Proof, not mere conjectures or assumptions, should be preferred to indicate that the accused had taken part in it.[40] Mere allegation and speculation is not evidence, and is not equivalent to proof.[41] In this case, there was no evidence to warrant the allegation of conspiracy. | |||||
|
2009-04-07 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| With respect to Estino, however, the Sandiganbayan did not find any conspiracy with Pescadera. The court held that it was Pescadera's duty as the Provincial Treasurer to advise Estino, then Acting Governor, and other local government officials regarding the disposition of local government funds and other matters related to public finance. It was found that Pescadera failed to inform Estino that the GSIS contributions must be remitted directly to the GSIS within the first 10 days of the calendar month following the month to which the contributions apply.[11] Also, the Sandiganbayan explained that even if Estino was Pescadera's co-signatory in the checks, mere signature or approval is not enough to sustain a finding of conspiracy, based on Sabiniano v. Court of Appeals.[12] | |||||
|
2006-09-26 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| Apropos in this regard is the rule that in the absence of satisfactory explanation, one who is found in possession of, and who has used, a forged document is the forger and therefore, guilty of falsification.[32] Undoubtedly, the fact that the petitioner benefited and even profited from the falsified notarized Release of Real Estate Mortgage are strong indications that she participated in the falsification of the same document. | |||||