Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. VICENTE ALIB

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 200358 2014-04-07	PEOPLE v. GERRY YABLE Y USMAN PEREZ, J.
On 28 March 2008, the trial court rendered a Decision finding Gerry guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged. The RTC found that the prosecution succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of Gerry for violation of Section 5, Article II, R.A. No. 9165. It ruled that the evidence presented during the trial adequately established that a valid buy-bust operation was conducted by the operatives of the QC-ADAC, in coordination with PDEA. On the other hand, Gerry failed to present substantial evidence to establish his defense of frame-up. The RTC ruled that frame-up, as advanced by Gerry, is generally looked upon with disfavor on account of its aridity and the facility with which an accused could concoct the same to suit his defense.[9] With the positive identification made by the government witnesses as the perpetrator of the crime, his self-serving denial is worthless.[10] Since there was nothing in the record to show that the arresting team and the prosecution witnesses were actuated by improper motives, their affirmative statements proving Gerry's culpability was respected by the trial court.
	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. 151834 2004-06-08	PEOPLE v. JUAN G. ESCOTE DAVIDE JR., CJ.
Necessarily, the defenses of denial and alibi interposed by Escote must fail. We view them with disfavor for being unsubstantiated and uncorroborated. Being negative and self-serving evidence, they cannot secure worthiness more than that placed upon the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who testified on clear and positive evidence[17] and who positively identified Escote as the perpetrator of the crime.[18]
	GR No. 132159 2001-01-18	PEOPLE v. CESAR GIVERA Y GAROTE MENDOZA, J.
The evidence thus clearly and convincingly shows a coordinated action by the group in the execution of the crime. In conspiracy, it is not necessary to show that all the conspirators actually hit and killed the victim. What is important is that all participants performed specific acts with such closeness and coordination as to unmistakably indicate a common purpose or design to bring about the death of the victim. The act of each conspirator in furtherance of the common purpose is in contemplation of law the act of all. Consonant with this legal principle, accused-appellant is guilty of the crime of murder as if he himself dealt the deathblow that sent the victim to his grave.[22]
	GR Nos. 136251 2001-01-16	PEOPLE v. JERITO AMAZAN MENDOZA, J.
Accused-appellants' contention has no merit. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.[49] In determining the existence of conspiracy, it is not necessary to show that all the conspirators actually hit and killed the victim. What is important is that all participants performed specific acts with such closeness and coordination as to indicate a common purpose or design to bring about the death of the victim.[50] The agreement may be deduced from the manner in which the offense was committed.[51]
	GR No. 137693 2000-12-14	PEOPLE v. DARWIN BANTAYAN PANGANIBAN, J.
The Court also rejects the submission of appellant that he would have gone into hiding if he had really committed the crime. It has been held that flight is often indicative of guilt.[14] The converse is not true, however.[15] Hence, the failure of appellant to flee does not prove his innocence.
	GR Nos. 124338-41 2000-05-12	PEOPLE v. ARTHUR DE LEON Y LAGMAY PARDO, J.
We are not convinced. In many cases, we have held that for alibi to prosper as a defense, accused must not only prove that he was not at the scene of the crime, but he must also prove the physical impossibility of being at the scene of the crime. It was not physically impossible for the accused Arthur de Leon y Lagmay to be at the scene of the crime.[25] Neither Demetrio Aquino nor Virginia de Leon could guarantee that accused-appellant during the entire day was at the farm.