This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-04-07 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Conspiracy may be deduced from the acts of the appellants before, during, and after the commission of the crime which are indicative of a joint purpose, concerted action, and concurrence of sentiments. [23] All three (3) appellants boarded the jeepney at the same time. Two (2) strategically sat infront of the victim and Pabalan while the other sat beside the victim. A few moments later, two (2) of the appellants (Esoy and Ciano) suddenly drew out their balisongs and swung the same at Pabalan and the victim. In the ensuing commotion, the victim's cellular phone was snatched and he was stabbed in the process. The appellants then hurriedly alighted from the jeepney at the same time. Their original and principal intention was undoubtedly to stage a robbery with the use of violence. As conspiracy had been established among appellants, all of them are liable as co-principals regardless of the manner and extent of their participation since, in point of law, the act of one (1) is the act of all. | |||||
|
2007-11-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Conspiracy may also be deduced from the acts of the appellants before, during, and after the commission of the crime which are indicative of a joint purpose, concerted action, and concurrence of sentiments.[23] Prosecution witnesses Josephine Refugio and Eusebio Farrales positively indicated in their testimonies that prior to the shooting of Eugenio Refugio, Castor was drunk, was openly challenging others to a fight, and was uttering angry words. It was at this juncture that witnesses saw Neil retrieve his gun from the parked car, after which Castor grabbed the gun from his son, grappled with it, returned it to his son, and ordered the latter to shoot the Refugios. | |||||