Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. RICARDO FRANCISCO Y CUPCUPIN

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 173248 2008-11-03	PEOPLE v. DANTE NUEVA Y SAMARO BRION, J.
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a crime and decide to commit it. Proof of the agreement need not rest on direct evidence as the same may be inferred from the conduct of the parties indicating a common understanding among them with respect to the commission of the offense. It is not necessary to show that two or more persons met together and entered into an explicit agreement setting out the details of an unlawful scheme or the details by which an illegal objective is to be carried out. It may be deduced from the mode and manner by which the offense was perpetrated or inferred from the acts of the accused showing a joint or common purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest.[46]
	GR No. 127368 2001-12-03	PEOPLE v. SALVADOR DREW QUISUMBING, J.
As a rule, appellate courts will not disturb the findings of the trial court regarding the credibility of witnesses, since it is the trial judge who had the opportunity to observe the deportment of the witnesses and their manner of testifying.[19] However, this rule does not apply in the present case, for the judge who penned the decision was not the same judge who heard the prosecution witnesses testify.[20] Hence, the records were subjected to a minute scrutiny to determine if the trial court unduly relied on the testimonies of the two prosecution witnesses, or if it overlooked some fact or circumstance of weight and influence which, if considered, might affect the result of the case.
	GR Nos. 132066-67 2001-11-29	PEOPLE v. BALAS MEDIOS QUISUMBING, J.
The penalty for frustrated murder is the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony, hence in this case the penalty imposable is prision mayor maximum to reclusion temporal medium. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and in the absence of other modifying circumstances, the proper penalty for frustrated murder should be eight (8) years of prision mayor minimum as minimum to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of reclusion temporal minimum as maximum.[16]
	GR No. 122664 2001-02-05	PEOPLE v. GEORGE BAYOD Y DALURAN PARDO, J.
The penalty for frustrated murder is one degree lesser than that prescribed for the consummated felony,[29] which in this case is prision mayor maximum to reclusion temporal medium.[30]
	GR No. 127843 2000-12-15	PEOPLE v. HERMAN D. BATO PARDO, J.
It is true that conspiracy need not be proven by direct evidence.[19] It can be shown by the conduct of accused-appellants, before, during and after the commission of the crime. In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.[20] Conspiracy is present when one concurs with the criminal design of another, indicated by the performance of an overt act leading to the crime committed. Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated. It may be inferred from the acts of the accused, evincing a joint or common purpose and design, concerted action or community of interest.[21] Conspiracy is not present in the case at bar.
	GR Nos. 131022 2000-12-14	PEOPLE v. ROGER ANIVADO MENDOZA, J.
The award of the civil liability must likewise be modified. The trial court ordered accused-appellants to pay the heirs of Restituto Acenas the amounts of P500,000.00 as moral damages in view of his social stature as a former vice mayor and councilor, and P150,000.00 as actual and compensatory damages. The amount of P500,000.00 as moral damages is excessive. Moral damages are not awarded to punish the defendant but to compensate the heirs for the injuries to their feelings.[44] The award should thus be reduced to P50,000.00. In accordance with our rulings,[45] the additional amount of P50,000.00 should, however, be ordered paid by accused-appellants as indemnity for the death of Restituto Acenas.
	GR No. 113446 2000-08-04	PEOPLE v. ELMER FEGIDERO Y CORDOVA PARDO, J.
understanding among them with respect to the commission of the offense. It is not necessary to show that two or more persons met together and entered into an explicit agreement setting out the details of an unlawful scheme or the details by which an illegal objective is to be carried out. It may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated or inferred from the acts of the accused evincing a joint or common purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest."[30] Accused-appellant claimed that he had no participation in the killing of victim Emilio Castro y Mallari. When accused-appellant was frisked by barangay councilor Frederico Lukban, a 7½ balisong was found inside his pants' left pocket, covered with blood.
	GR No. 128149 2000-07-24	PEOPLE v. JIMMY ANTONIO PARDO, J.
Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated. It may be inferred from the acts of the accused, evincing a joint or common purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest.[42]