Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EVANGELINE LADONGA v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 209464 2015-07-01	DANDY L. DUNGO v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
The Court does not categorically agree that, under R.A. No. 8049, the prosecution need not prove conspiracy. Jurisprudence dictates that conspiracy must be established, not by conjectures, but by positive and conclusive evidence. Conspiracy transcends mere companionship and mere presence at the scene of the crime does not in itself amount to conspiracy. Even knowledge, acquiescence in 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.[99]
	GR No. 168852 2008-09-30	SHARICA MARI L. GO-TAN v. SPS. PERFECTO C. TAN AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Most recently, in Ladonga v. People,[22] the Court applied suppletorily the principle of conspiracy under Article 8 of the RPC to B.P. Blg. 22 in the absence of a contrary provision therein.
	GR No. 147782 2008-06-25	JUANITA A. AQUINO VELASCO JR., J.
To be held guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, the accused must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity. Mere presence when the transaction was made does not necessarily lead to an inference of concurrence with the criminal design to commit the crime of estafa. Even knowledge, acquiescence, or agreement to cooperate is not enough to constitute one as a party to a conspiracy because the rule is that neither joint nor simultaneous action is per se sufficient proof of conspiracy.[23]
	GR No. 132795 2004-03-10	BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS v. FLORENTINO A. TUAZON AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Petitioner then went to the Court of Appeals, on a petition[14] under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court alleging that: (a) the complaint of herein private respondents states no cause of action against it, hence, an ancillary and provisional remedy such as a writ of preliminary injunction may not be enforced against it; (b) the pendency of a motion to dismiss was a prejudicial question to the resolution of respondents' application for a writ of preliminary injunction; (c) private respondents have not shown any ground for the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction; (d) Branch 66 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati may not enjoin the processes of Branch 141, a co-equal branch of the court; (e) execution pursuant to a judicial foreclosure of mortgaged property may be made independently of the receivership proceedings; and (f) the cases cited in the questioned order are not applicable in the case at bar.[15]