This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2009-10-02 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In People v. Gutierrez, we held that "(T)he accused Castillo's argument that he was not ably identified to have been one of the assailants as even the police blotter entry regarding the incident failed to mention him deserves scant consideration. We have ruled that police blotter entries should not always be given due significance or probative value for they do not constitute conclusive proof of the identities of suspected assailants."[13] | |||||
|
2007-07-12 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| After resolving the issue of appellant's culpability, we now determine whether or not the commission of the crime was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack on an unsuspecting victim by the perpetrator of the crime, depriving him of the chance to defend himself or repel the aggression, thus ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor and without any provocation on the part of the victim.[13] Here, at the time of the fatal attack, Allan was watching a basketball game, evidently fully unaware that someone from behind him would thrust a knife at his back. By all indications, Allan was without opportunity to evade the thrust, much less defend himself, or, worse still, retaliate. For sure, the testimony of the medico-legal officer to the effect that she found no defense wound on the body of Allan could only mean that the latter was completely defenseless when attacked. | |||||
|
2004-07-12 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| We find that conspiracy exists in this case. While there is no showing of direct evidence that appellants agreed to commit the crime, their acts and the attendant circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime disclose a common design that would make all of them co-principals in the crime committed. As the records would show, appellants Pia, Samrod and Richard conducted the preliminaries to the transaction when they tried to ascertain the identity of the supposed buyer and made inquiries on the availability of the drug money. Satisfied, they then brought to the scene appellants Tata, Sara, Jovi and Noel who delivered the prohibited substance. This indubitably demonstrates a concerted effort on the part of the appellants in perpetrating the illegal sale. We can deduce from their collective conduct a common design, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments. Needless to state, when conspiracy is shown, the act of one is the act of all the conspirators.[8] | |||||
|
2003-03-28 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| We rule that there was conspiracy between the appellant and his co-accused. Conspiracy can be inferred from the acts of the perpetrators before, during and after the crime, which indicate a common design, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments.[43] From the testimonies of eyewitnesses, the acts of the appellant and his co-accused showed unity of purpose and design in the execution of the offense. The malefactors, all armed, entered the house of Dioscoro Abonales. Paulino Buayaban and Pedro Tumulak stood guard over Rolando Verdida and Elizabeth Abonales as they lay flat on the floor. Meanwhile, Yoyong Buayaban and Marciano Toñacao woke up the victim by kicking him in the face and when the victim tried to get up, Marciano shot him in the neck, killing him instantly. Larry Betache, on the other hand, stayed at the door to act as a look-out. After the perpetrators forcibly seized the money from the wife of the victim and from Rolando Verdida, they all ran away from the place of the crime. | |||||
|
2002-10-04 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Lapiz was watching John Anton who was lying on the floor face down.[85] Francisco then tied the hands of John Anton.[86] Meanwhile, Joanna Rose was seated on the sofa, tied up, blindfolded, and gagged.[87] Francisco then tied up Helen Grace.[88] After all the victims had been tied-up, the three appellants entered her parents' room, after which they went out, whispering to each other.[89] Maximo and Francisco then brought the female victims inside the master's bedroom. John Anton remained outside, guarded by Edmund.[90] Once inside the bedroom, Francisco inflicted multiple stab wounds on Nancy, Joanna Rose, Maria Angela, and Helen Grace.[91] John Anton, in turn, was fatally stabbed outside the master's bedroom, where Edmund was left guarding him. From the foregoing eyewitness testimony, it appears that the actions of Maximo, Edmund, and Francisco were concerted, even synchronized. There was commonality of purpose and action. From thereon, it is apparent that there was a conspiracy among the three appellants. When two or more persons aimed their acts towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their acts, though apparently independent, but were in fact connected and cooperative, indicating closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment, then conspiracy may be inferred though no actual meeting among them to concert means is proved.[92] Where there is conspiracy, the act of one is deemed the act of all.[93] Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the essential elements of murder are: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him; (3) the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248; and (4) the killing is neither parricide nor | |||||