This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2001-12-19 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| For conspiracy to exist, the participants must agree to the commission of the felony and decide to commit it, which agreement may be deduced from the mode and manner of the commission of the offense or inferred from the acts that point to joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of intent.[21] The conspiracy must be shown to exist as clearly and convincingly as the crime itself.[22] | |||||
|
2001-12-19 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Although the knife used by Roberto belonged to Elmer, his handing the knife to Roberto was not by itself an act of conspiracy. Nothing in the records shows that the two had a preconceived plan to commit the crime.[24] It will be recalled that here the fray started because of a practical joke pulled on one of the victims, Rodrigo Serojo. There is no proof on record that appellant Elmer Avenue was motivated by the criminal design similarly entertained by Roberto Saul at the same time. In a string of cases,[25] we said that the milder form of responsibility should be attributed to the appellants in case of doubt. Thus, we are constrained to agree with appellant Elmer Avenue's assertion that his participation was only that of an accomplice in the offenses committed. | |||||
|
2001-11-29 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. The agreement to commit a crime may be deduced from the mode and manner of the commission of the offense or inferred from the acts that point to joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of intent. It is sufficient that at the time of the aggression, all the accused manifested by their acts, a common intent or desire to attack so that the act of one accused becomes the act of all.[13] | |||||