This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2004-02-05 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| These acts before, during, and after the crime clearly indicate a joint purpose, a unity of action, and the concurrence of intent. Where the acts of the accused collectively and individually demonstrate the existence of a common design towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful purpose, conspiracy is evident and all the perpetrators are liable as principals.[31] While it was not appellant who actually took property from the Adelans, appellant is still liable for robbery since the existence of conspiracy makes the act of one the act of all. Appellant and his co-accused killed the victim in the course of committing robbery. Consequently, even if appellant were to prove that he did not stab the victim, he would still be liable for the victim's death. Whenever the commission of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide is proven, all those who took part in the robbery are liable as principals even though they did not take part in the killing.[32] | |||||
|
2003-12-01 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Section 8 simply provides that the Information or complaint must state the designation of the offense given by the statute and specify its qualifying and generic aggravating circumstances. On the other hand, the use of the word 'must' in said section 9 indicates that the requirement is mandatory and, therefore, the failure to comply with Sec. 9, Rule 110, means that generic aggravating circumstances, although proven at the trial, cannot be appreciated against the accused if such circumstances are not stated in the Information. [59] | |||||
|
2003-11-19 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Section 8 simply provides that the information or complaint must state the designation of the offense given by the statute and specify its qualifying and generic aggravating circumstances. With regard to Section 9, we held in People vs. Nerio Suela [48] that the use of the word `must' indicates that the requirement is mandatory and failure to comply with it means that generic aggravating circumstances, although proven at the trial, cannot be appreciated against the accused if such circumstances are not alleged in the information. Although the rule took effect on December 1, 2000, the same may be applied retroactively[49] because it is a cardinal rule that rules of criminal procedure are given retroactive application insofar as they benefit the accused.[50] | |||||
|
2003-03-28 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Section 8 simply provides that the information or complaint must state the designation of the offense given by the statute and specify its qualifying and generic aggravating circumstances. With regard to Section 9, we held in People vs. Nerio Suela [48] that the use of the word 'must" in said section 9 indicates that the requirement is mandatory and therefore, the failure to comply with Sec. 9, Rule 110, means that generic aggravating circumstances, although proven at the trial, cannot be appreciated against the accused if such circumstances are not stated in the information. It is a cardinal rule that rules of criminal procedure are given retroactive application insofar as they benefit the accused.[49] | |||||
|
2003-03-26 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In the case at bar, conspiracy was clearly manifested in the concerted efforts of the accused-appellant and his cohort. They were seen together by PO1 Molato at the unholy hour of 2:50 a.m. forcibly taking the wristwatch of the victim and thereafter stabbing him at the back. Their simultaneous acts indicate a joint purpose, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments. Where the acts of the accused collectively and individually demonstrate the existence of a common design towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful purpose, conspiracy is evident, and all the perpetrators will be liable as principals.[9] | |||||
|
2002-07-18 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| pursuit made by Amado to be half-hearted while Mr. Peralta testified that both accused were simply walking and not running. Fourth, by their actions, the accused were able to successfully consummate the crime with the least resistance from the other passengers. From these facts, the Court can conclusively infer the presence of a concerted action and a community of interest."[67] The foregoing acts of appellants before, during and after the crime clearly indicated joint purpose, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments.[68] Since their collective and individual acts demonstrated the existence of a common design for the | |||||