This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2016-01-11 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Indeed, the act of the appellant of holding the victim's right hand while the victim was being stabbed by Dennis shows that he concurred in the criminal design of the actual killer. If such act were separate from the stabbing, appellant's natural reaction should have been to immediately let go of the victim and flee as soon as the first stab was inflicted. But appellant continued to restrain the deceased until Dennis completed his attack.[49] (Citation omitted) | |||||
|
2015-02-02 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The lower courts' finding of conspiracy must also be sustained. There is conspiracy "when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. It arises on the very instant the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to commit the felony and forthwith decide to pursue it."[14] Here, the evidence is sufficient to prove that appellants conspired to murder Agon. Vitan testified that on February 21, 2004, he, the accused and appellants agreed to murder Agon. In accordance with their plan, they proceeded the next day, February 22, 2004, to the cockpit arena, a place which they knew that Agon would be at on that particular day. Upon their arrival thereat, the members of the group which included appellants positioned themselves according to their plan and waited for Agon to leave. Later on, Caballero signaled Vitan and the other alleged gunman, accused Theo (Theo), that the target had left the arena and that his vehicle was already approaching their position. When Agon's vehicle came, Vitan and Theo fired at him. Vitan, Caballero, Alvarez, who acted as one of the back-ups, and the rest of the group then fled the scene of the crime. Clearly, there was unity of action and purpose among the members of "Black Shark," which include appellants in killing Agon. | |||||
|
2013-09-18 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant emphasizes the testimonies of defense witnesses that there was no moon on the night of February 27, 2006. Nestor Ardet, however, testified that the surroundings were very bright because of the fire that razed the victim's house. It should be furthermore stressed that the three eyewitnesses, Nestor Ardet, Boyet Tamot and Edison Beltran are all relatives of accused-appellant and his son Jocel. As correctly held by the Court of Appeals, it was settled in People v. Amodia[47] that "once a person knows another through association, identification becomes an easy task even from a considerable distance; most often, the face and body movements of the person identified [have] created a lasting impression on the identifier's mind that cannot easily be erased." | |||||
|
2013-02-27 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode, method, and manner in which the offense was perpetrated; or inferred from the acts of the accused when those acts point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action, and community of interests.[13] Proof of a previous agreement and decision to commit the crime is not essential, but the fact that the malefactors acted in unison pursuant to the same objective suffices.[14] In a long line of cases, we have held thus: To be a conspirator, one need not participate in every detail of the execution; he need not even take part in every act. Each conspirator may be assigned separate and different tasks which may appear unrelated to one another but, in fact, constitute a whole collective effort to achieve their common criminal objective. Once conspiracy is shown, the act of one is the act of all the conspirators. The precise extent or modality of participation of each of them becomes secondary, since all the conspirators are principals.[15] | |||||
|
2011-12-14 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| "Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it." [23] In conspiracy, it is not necessary to adduce direct evidence of a previous agreement to commit a crime. [24] 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." [25] Proof of a previous agreement and decision to commit the crime is not essential but the fact that the malefactors acted in unison pursuant to the same objective suffices. [26] | |||||
|
2011-03-16 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of superior strength is considered whenever there is notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressors that is plainly and obviously advantageous to the aggressors and purposely selected or taken advantage of to facilitate the commission of the crime.[53] It is taken into account whenever the aggressor purposely used excessive force that is "out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked."[54] The victim need not be completely defenseless in order for the said aggravating circumstance to be appreciated.[55] As this Court held in People v. Amodia:[56] | |||||
|
2010-02-24 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The Solicitor General likewise alleges that a civil indemnity ex delito in the amount of P50,000.00 should be awarded. Article 2206[67] of the Civil Code authorizes the award of civil indemnity for death caused by a crime. The award of said civil indemnity is mandatory, and is granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[68] However, current jurisprudence have already increased the award of civil indemnity ex delicto to P75,000.00.[69] We, therefore, award this amount to the heirs of Ernesto. | |||||