Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DENNIS MANGANGEY v. SANDIGANBAYAN and the PEOPLE

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 179497 2012-01-25	PEOPLE v. RENANDANG MAMARUNCAS DEL CASTILLO, J.
We also sustain the finding of conspiracy. Conspiracy exists "when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Direct proof of previous agreement to commit a crime is not necessary x x x [as it] may be shown through circumstantial evidence, deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the accused themselves when such lead to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest."[35]
	GR No. 188105 2010-04-23	PEOPLE v. MONICO DE CHAVEZ Y PERLAS VELASCO JR., J.
There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a crime and decide to commit it.[22] Conspiracy requires the same degree of proof required to establish the crime--proof beyond reasonable doubt;[23] as mere presence at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission without proof of cooperation or agreement to cooperate is not enough to constitute one a party to a conspiracy.[24]
	GR Nos. 175045-46 2010-03-03	ENGR. RICARDO L. SANTILLANO v. PEOPLE VELASCO JR., J.
A judgment of conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be upheld only if the circumstances proved constitute an unbroken chain that leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person, that is, the circumstances proved must be consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at the same time inconsistent with any other hypothesis except that of guilty.[21]
	GR No. 161178 2010-02-05	ADELA B. DELGADO v. PEOPLE VELASCO JR., J.
The elements of the crime of estafa, under Article 315(2) of the Revised Penal Code are: (1) the accused made false pretenses or fraudulent representations as to his or her power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business, or imaginary transactions; (2) such false pretenses or fraudulent representations were made prior to or simultaneous with the commission of the fraud; (3) such false pretenses or fraudulent representations constitute the very cause which induced the offended party to part with his or her money or property; and (4) as a result of those acts, the offended party suffered damage.[9] As all the elements have been duly proved, as found by the RTC and affirmed by the CA, the conviction of petitioner must be upheld.
	GR No. 179154 2009-07-31	PEOPLE v. ROGER PEREZ QUISUMBING, J.
Fourth, we sustain the finding of conspiracy. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Direct proof of previous agreement to commit a crime is not necessary. Conspiracy may be shown through circumstantial evidence, deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the accused themselves when such lead to a joint purpose and design, concerted action, and community of interest.[25]
	GR No. 180314 2009-04-16	NORMALLAH A. PACASUM v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We do not agree with the petitioner. It is a settled rule that the findings of fact of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings, are accorded high respect if not conclusive effect.[63] The determination of the credibility of witnesses is the domain of the trial court, as it is in the best position to observe the witnesses' demeanor.[64] The Sandiganbayan has given full probative value to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. So have we. We find no reason to depart from such a rule.