This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2012-12-03 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| To recall, Marquez was the one who proposed the robbery. When all acceded, he then provided Magalong with a lead pipe, who, together with Bernardo, smashed and destroyed the padlock of the store and which likewise caused the door to be broken. All petitioners and Benzon then entered the store and took things, with the intention to sell the items stolen and share among themselves the proceeds thereof. It is therefore clear from the testimony of Mallari that petitioners acted in conspiracy in the commission of the robbery. It must be stressed that what is important in conspiracy is that all conspirators "performed specific acts with such closeness and coordination as to indicate an unmistakably common purpose or design to commit the crime."[63] The responsibility of the conspirators is therefore collective rendering all of them equally liable regardless of the extent of their respective participations.[64] | |||||
|
2011-01-12 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Appellants' attempt to discredit Constantino must fail since there was no showing of any improper motive on Constantino's part that would induce him to testify falsely against Nagares.[13] Further, settled is the rule that the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is generally accorded great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal since the trial court was in a better position to decide thereon, having personally heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[14] | |||||
|
2008-10-06 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Since there was conspiracy among Dela Torre, Bisaya, and Amoroso, the act of any one was the act of all and each of them is equally guilty of all the crimes committed.[11] | |||||
|
2006-04-18 |
PANGANIBAN, CJ |
||||
| To be sure, ex parte affidavits are usually incomplete, as these are frequently prepared by administering officers and cast in their language and understanding of what affiants have said.[31] Almost always, the latter would simply sign the documents after being read to them. Basic is the rule that, taken ex parte, affidavits are considered incomplete and often inaccurate. They are products sometimes of partial suggestions and at other times of want of suggestions and inquiries, without the aid of which witnesses may be unable to recall the connected circumstances necessary for accurate recollection.[32] | |||||