Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ROGER PEREZ

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No.178115 2014-07-28	PEOPLE OF PIDLIPPINES v. JOJO SUMILIDG DEL CASTILLO, J.
"[C]onspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it."[21] It is not necessary to adduce evidence of a previous agreement to commit a crime.[22] "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."[23]
	GR No. 177751 2011-12-14	PEOPLE v. EDDIE AGACER 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]
	GR No. 175887 2010-11-24	HEIRS OF LATE NESTOR TRIA v. ATTY. EPIFANIA OBIAS VILLARAMA, JR., J.
On the other hand, conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.[51] 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.[52]
	GR No. 186539 2010-06-29	PEOPLE v. MITSUEL L. ELARCOSA VELASCO JR., J.
In the absence of direct proof, the agreement to commit a crime may be deduced from the mode and manner of the commission of the offense or inferred from acts that point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action, and community of interest.[47] It does not matter who inflicted the mortal wound, as each of the actors incurs the same criminal liability, because the act of one is the act of all. As we held in People v. Alib:[48]
	GR No. 188331 2010-06-16	PEOPLE v. RYAN LALONGISIP Y DELOS ANGELES NACHURA, J.
Treachery exists when an offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself, arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[11] The events narrated by the prosecution eyewitnesses point to the fact that Romeo could not have been aware that he would be attacked by appellant. There was no opportunity for him to defend himself, since appellant, suddenly and without provocation, stabbed the victim at the back as they were about to partake of their lunch. The essence of treachery is the unexpected and sudden attack on the victim which renders the latter unable and unprepared to defend himself by reason of the suddenness and severity of the attack. This criterion applies whether the attack is frontal or from behind.[12]