This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2001-04-16 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Contrary to accused-appellants' claim, conspiracy is present in this case, as shown by the following circumstances: Upon seeing the victim, and without uttering any word, Ernesto Bacunawa tried to restrain Largo while Richard Bacunawa stabbed the victim. This clearly shows that there was unity in purpose and common criminal design between them. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. There is conspiracy if at the time of the commission of the felony, the defendants had the same criminal purpose and acted in unison towards the execution of their common criminal design. Once the conspiracy is proven, the act of one becomes the act of all regardless of who actually rendered the fatal blow on the victim.[7]Third, the defense maintains that the Bacunawa brothers could not have harmed Largo considering the absence of any motive for them to do so. However, this theory conflicts with Ernesto Bacunawa's admission that he was the one who killed the victim. Besides, proof of motive is unnecessary in view of the positive identification of the accused-appellants.[8]Last, the trial court properly appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery. The victim and his companion, Gil Ortega, were unsuspecting and totally unaware of the harm that was forthcoming. Immediately upon passing by accused-appellants, Ernesto Bacunawa suddenly restrained Largo by embracing him while Richard Bacunawa stabbed him on the stomach. The manner of the attack was so sudden leaving the victim no opportunity and time to offer even a token resistance.[9] The means of execution were spontaneously and consciously adopted. It can only be labeled as treacherous. | |||||
|
2000-10-04 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. It may be deduced from the manner in which the offense is committed, as when the accused acted in concert to achieve the same objective.[11] In order to hold an accused liable as co-principal by reason of conspiracy, he must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or in furtherance of conspiracy. The overt act may consist of active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself or it may consist of moral assistance to his co-conspirators by exerting moral ascendancy over the other co-conspirators by moving them to execute or implement the conspiracy.[12] Mere presence at the scene of the incident, knowledge of the plan or acquiescence thereto are not sufficient grounds to hold a person liable as a conspirator. As such, conspiracy must be established as any element of the crime and evidence of the conspiracy must be beyond reasonable doubt.[13] Neither joint nor simultaneous action is per se sufficient indicium of conpiracy, unless proved to have been motivated by a common design.[14] | |||||