This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-04-24 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| This Office, however, submits that the "conspiracy" per se should not be given its technical meaning in criminal law. Rather, for purpose of administrative proceeding where the quantum of evidence required is substantive evidence and not proof beyond reasonable doubt, it is sufficient that the two respondents by their own respective acts have participated in the realization of the fraudulent and unlawful object and without such collusion the objective could not have been accomplished.[8] | |||||
|
2008-06-25 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Conspiracy is deemed to arise when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy need not be proven by direct evidence of prior agreement to commit the crime.[20] In criminal law, where the quantum of evidence required is proof beyond reasonable doubt, direct proof is not essential to show conspiracy--it may be deduced from the mode, method, and manner by which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the accused themselves when such acts point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action, and community of interest.[21] | |||||
|
2007-07-12 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| As regards the issue of conspiracy, the prosecution has proffered sufficient evidence that Cenahonon and Erdaje had unity of purpose in the perpetration of the kidnapping for ransom of Kenneth Medina. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.[50] While it is mandatory to prove it by competent evidence, direct proof is not essential to show conspiracy it may be deduced from the mode, method, and manner by which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the accused themselves when such acts point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest.[51] | |||||