This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2009-08-28 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant Garcia also argues that there was no conspiracy, as "there was no evidence whatsoever that he aided the other two accused-appellants or that he participated in their criminal designs."[21] We are not persuaded. In People v. Maldo,[22] we stated: "Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Direct proof is not essential, for conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused prior to, during or subsequent to the incident. Such acts must point to a joint purpose, concert of action or community of interest. Hence, the victim need not be actually hit by each of the conspirators for the act of one of them is deemed the act of all." (citations omitted, emphasis ours) | |||||
|
2000-03-09 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The trial court was correct in its assessment that treachery and evident premeditation did not attend the commission of the crime. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[6] In this case, the prosecution did not establish how the attack was commenced. When Albert Fernandez went out of their house to investigate, Armando and Eduardo Gaviola were already in the act of attacking Antonio. In People v. Rodrigo Maldo, et al.,[7] this Court held:"Absent any particulars as to the manner in which the aggression commenced or how the act that resulted in the death of the victim unfolded, treachery cannot be appreciated. It is not sufficient that the victim was unarmed and that the means employed by the malefactor brought the desired result. The prosecution must prove that the appellant deliberately and consciously adopted such means, method or manner of attack as would deprive the victim of an opportunity for self-defense or retaliation x x x." | |||||
|
2000-02-29 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The fact that a witness may have been investigated in connection with the commission of the crime and that he had a previous quarrel with appellant are no grounds for disqualification of a witness under Section 20 of Rule 130 of he Rules of Court. By itself, prejudice against an accused cannot warrant the disqualification of witnesses or the total disregard of their testimonies.[20] Under the same rule, in general, any person can testify in court, regardless of personal interest in a case. At any rate, these circumstances may affect the credibility of the witness, the assessment of which is within the province of the trial court. Anent his motive in testifying, Colo repeatedly insisted that he offered to testify because he pitied the mother of the victim who could find no witnesses willing to shed light on the death of her daughter.[21] The foregoing factors considered, we find no cogent reason to overturn the factual findings of the trial court. | |||||
|
2000-02-15 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| However, evident premeditation cannot be appreciated inasmuch as the following elements were not duly proven: (1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the offender had clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between the determination and the execution to allow the offender to reflect on the consequences of his act.[26] | |||||