This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2007-09-13 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a crime and decide to commit it.[32] It may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence consisting of acts, words, or conduct of the alleged conspirators before, during and after the commission of the felony to achieve a common design or purpose.[33] Hence, common design is the essence of conspiracy. | |||||
|
2002-05-29 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| CONTRARY TO LAW.[3] Accused Maximo Rafael was tried ahead of accused-appellants as he was the only one in custody at the time. On October 30, 1995, he was found guilty as charged and sentenced in Criminal Case No. Q-94-59453 (frustrated murder) to the indeterminate penalty of six (6) years of prision correccional, as minimum, to twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as maximum, and to death in Criminal Case No. Q-94-59454 (for murder). On appeal, this Court found Maximo Rafael guilty not as a principal but only as an accomplice in the commission of the crimes and accordingly sentenced him to two (2) years, eleven (11) months, and eleven (11) days of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum, for frustrated murder, and to eight (8) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fifteen (15) years, six (6) months, and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal, as maximum, for murder.[4] | |||||
|
2001-07-19 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| In this case, there was no clear indication of the existence of conspiracy. First, eyewitness' identification of accused-appellant at the scene of the crime was not clear. Although the witness was familiar with the accused-appellant, the lack of lighting in the store at the time left doubt as to her proper identification of accused-appellant, who was several meters away from her. Second, Felicidad merely stated that she saw him standing by the door of the store.[20] Mere presence at the scene of the crime is insufficient to prove conspiracy.[21] A conspirator must perform an overt act in furtherance of the plan to commit a felony; 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.[22] Mere presence, knowledge, acquiescence to or agreement to cooperate, is not enough to constitute one as a party to a conspiracy, absent any active participation in the commission of the crime, with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose.[23] | |||||
|
2001-05-28 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Mere knowledge, acquiescence, or agreement to cooperate, is not enough to constitute one as a party to a conspiracy, absent any active participation in the commission of the crime, with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose.[15] Conspiracy transcends companionship.[16] The presence and company of Lemuel were not necessary or essential to the perpetration of the murder. | |||||