Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ROGELIO VILLANUEVA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 196005 2014-10-01	PEOPLE v. CHARLIE FIELDAD CARPIO, ACTING C.J.
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.[39] Conspiracy can be inferred from and established by the acts of the accused themselves when said acts point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest.[40] Once conspiracy is shown the act of one is the act of all the conspirators.
	GR No. 205298 2014-09-10	LEOPOLDO QUINTOS Y DEL AMOR v. PEOPLE CARPIO, ACTING C.J.
Indeed, mere presence does not signify conspiracy. However, neither does it indicate the lack thereof. Conspiracy can be inferred from and established by the acts of the accused themselves when said acts point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest.[24] In fact, the prosecution established that petitioner was actively involved in the attack on Freddie dela Cruz.
	GR No. 148327 2003-06-12	PEOPLE v. RENATO DESALISA Y PAYOS PUNO, J.
The defense also makes much fuss of the alleged inconsistent and contradictory statements of prosecution witness Ladella Oracion. It impugns the credibility of witness Ladella, and argues that she is "capable of telling a lie" as shown in the discrepancy between her affidavit and testimony on the identities of the persons engaged in the argument during their drinking spree, whether they were the victim and Renato, or Teddy and Renato; and her alleged inconsistent statements during her cross-examination on which hand, right or left, made a thrust when accused-appellant hacked her.[22] These alleged discrepancies dwell on minor and trivial matters which do not impair the integrity of the evidence for the prosecution as a whole nor reflect on the honesty of the witness. They can even enhance the truthfulness of her testimony as they erase any suspicion of it being rehearsed. [23]
	GR No. 133789 2001-08-23	PEOPLE v. EDUARDO CHUA Y PANGAN QUISUMBING, J.
In essence, what appellant Dick puts at issue is the trial court's appreciation of factual details of the buy-bust. Suffice it to say that we have in numerous cases made clear the policy of this Court, founded on reason and experience, to sustain the factual findings of the trial court in criminal cases, on the rational assumption that it is in a better position to assess the evidence before it,[51] having had the opportunity to make an honest determination of the witnesses' deportment during the trial.[52] In Dick's case as also in Chua's own, we are not prepared to disbelieve and disregard the trial court's factual findings.