This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2015-04-20 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| In the eyes of the law, conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a crime and decide to commit it.[13] For an accused to be validly held to have conspired with her co-accused in committing the crime, her overt acts must evince her active part in the execution of the crime agreed to be committed. The overt acts of each of the conspirators must tend to execute the offense agreed upon, for the merely passive conspirator cannot be held to be still part of the conspiracy without such overt acts, unless such conspirator is the mastermind. Here, Fransdilla was satisfactorily shown not to have been a mere passive co-conspirator, but an active one who had facilitated the access into the house by representing herself as an employee of the POEA. In that respect, it is not always required to establish that two or more persons met and explicitly entered into the agreement to commit the crime by laying down the details of how their unlawful scheme or objective would be carried out.[14] Conspiracy can also be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense is perpetrated, or can be inferred from the acts of the several accused evincing their joint or common purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest.[15] Once conspiracy is established, the act of each conspirator is the act of all. | |||||
|
2015-03-11 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In UCPB v. Ho,[41] docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 113446, respondent Ho was similarly situated with O'Halloran and Spouses Choi. Upon reaching the CA, the CA considered the Agreement between UCPB and Primetown as an assignment of credit, because: 1) the parties entered into the Agreement without the consent of the debtor; 2) UCPB's obligation "to deliver to the buyer the title over the condominium unit upon their full payment" signifies that the title to the condominium unit remained with Primetown; 3) UCPB's prerogative "to rescind the contract to sell and transfer the title of condominium unit to its name upon failure of the buyer to pay the full purchase price" indicates that UCPB was merely given the right to transfer title in its name to apply the property as partial payment of Primetown's obligation; and 4) the Agreement clearly states that the assignment is limited to the receivables and does not include "any and all liabilities which [Primetown] may have assumed under the individual contract to sell." Thus, the CA ruled that UCPB was a mere assignee of the right of Primetown to collect on its contract to sell with Ho. The CA, then, applied the ruling in UCPB v. O'Halloran in finding UCPB jointly liable with Primetown only for the payments UCPB had actually received from Ho. | |||||
|
2012-06-13 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| Clearly, it was established beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant, together with at least two other persons, came to an agreement to commit the felony and decided to commit it. It is not necessary to show that two or more persons met together and entered into an explicit agreement laying down the details of how an unlawful scheme or objective is to be carried out. Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated; or from the acts of the accused evincing a joint or common purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest.[11] | |||||
|
2006-04-18 |
PANGANIBAN, CJ |
||||
| Res gestae refers to statements made by the participants or the victims of, or the spectators to, a crime immediately before, during, or after its commission.[49] These statements are a spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by the excitement of the occasion, without any opportunity for the declarant to fabricate a false statement.[50] An important consideration is whether there intervened, between the occurrence and the statement, any circumstance calculated to divert the mind and thus restore the mental balance of the declarant; and afford an opportunity for deliberation.[51] | |||||
|
2001-06-06 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| The elements of conspiracy are the following: (1) two or more persons came to an agreement, (2) the agreement concerned the commission of a felony, and (3) the execution of the felony was decided upon. Proof of the conspiracy need not be based on direct evidence, because it may be inferred from the parties' conduct indicating a common understanding among themselves with respect to the commission of the crime. Neither is it necessary to show that two or more persons met together and entered into an explicit agreement setting out the details of an unlawful scheme or objective to be carried out. The conspiracy may be deduced from the mode or manner in which the crime was perpetrated; it may also be inferred from the acts of the accused evincing a joint or common purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest.[12] | |||||
|
2001-02-28 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Any person found guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of person shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death when by reason or on the occasion of robbery the crime of homicide shall have been committed.[9] For reasons earlier discussed, the trial court erred in appreciating the two (2) killings as aggravating circumstances and the voluntary confession as a mitigating circumstance. There being neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, Art. 63 of The Revised Penal Code dictates that the lesser penalty, or only reclusion perpetua, be imposed. We affirm the award of P50,000.00 or a total of P150,000.00 for the three (3) homicides as death indemnity. In consonance with Art. 2219, par. (1), in relation to Art. 2206, of the Civil Code, an award of P50,000.00 to the legal heirs of each of the three (3) victims for moral damages would be reasonable.[10] | |||||