This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2012-06-13 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The settled rule is that a judgment of conviction based purely on circumstantial evidence can be upheld only if the following requisites concur: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt.[11] The corollary rule is that the circumstances proven must constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person,[12] i.e., the circumstances proven must be consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent and with any other rational hypothesis except that of guilt.[13] | |||||
|
2009-06-16 |
PUNO, C.J. |
||||
| In Garces v. People,[89] People v. Flores,[90] People v. Barbosa,[91] People v. Ragundiaz,[92] People v. Bato,[93] and People v. Garalde,[94] the accomplice was held to be solidarity liable with the principal for only one-half (1/2) of the amount adjudged as civil indemnity. In Garces, the accomplice was held solidarity liable for half of the civil indemnity ex delicto but was made to pay the moral damages of P50,000.00 separately from the principal. In Flores, Ragundiaz, Bato, and Garalde, the accomplice was held solidarily liable for half of the combined amounts of the civil indemnity ex delicto and moral damages. In Ragundiaz, the accomplice was also made solidarily liable with the principal for half of the actual damages, and in Garalde the accomplice was also held solidarily liable with the principal for half of the exemplary damages, aside from the civil and moral damages. | |||||
|
2003-06-12 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| We come to the award of damages. We reduce the award of the trial court from P42,500.00 to P19,050.00 because it is only the latter amount which is supported by receipts.[28] The total amount of P19,050.00 consisted of P16,300.00 for funeral services (Loyola de Mesa Funeral Parlor), P2,400.00 for interment services (South Felipe Parish Cemetery), and P350.00 for church services (South Felipe Parish Church).[29] Lastly, we reduce the award of moral damages and civil indemnity from P100,000.00 to P50,000.00 each.[30] | |||||
|
2002-06-06 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Motive and opportunity speak eloquently in this case. While motive of the accused in a criminal case is generally held to be immaterial, not being an element of the crime, motive becomes important when, as in this case, the evidence on the commission of the crime is purely circumstantial.[47] Appellant was in dire need of money when he approached the victim. But she refused to lend him any, and even openly scolded him. It was established that appellant left in a huff without showing courtesy to Mrs. Padilla. Appellant and co-accused Margallo did not return to work anymore on the succeeding days, contrary to the instructions of Mrs. Padilla. Thereafter, Mrs. Padilla was robbed and killed. Her money and jewelry were taken on the occasion of the killing in the early hours of January 25, 1994. The Padillas had no known enemies. Only the accused and his co-workers had frequented the Padilla home in the course of their work. Who could have done the dastardly act? | |||||
|
2000-12-15 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| It is the lack of complete evidence of conspiracy that creates doubt as to whether Jacinto acted as a principal or as an accomplice. Given this, we resolve the question in his favor of the lesser form of responsibility. Accordingly, accused-appellant Jacinto D. Bato must be convicted as an accomplice to the murder of Reynaldo Sescon.[27] | |||||
|
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] | |||||