This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2004-04-14 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| In determining the existence of conspiracy, it is not necessary to show that all the conspirators actually hit and killed the victim.[7] The presence of conspiracy among the accused can be proven by their conduct before, during or after the commission of the crime showing that they acted in unison with each other, evincing a common purpose or design. There must be a showing that appellant cooperated in the commission of the offense, either morally, through advice, encouragement or agreement or materially through external acts indicating a manifest intent of supplying aid in the perpetration of the crime in an efficacious way. In such case, the act of one becomes the act of all, and each of the accused will thereby be deemed equally guilty of the crime committed.[8] | |||||
|
2003-11-12 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The proof of conspiracy is perhaps most frequently made by evidence of a chain of circumstances.[52] The series of events in this case clearly show that appellants were of one mind, not only in taking the money of spouses Julaton, but also in the manner they committed the crime. Clearly, their concerted actions are indications of a criminal conspiracy. | |||||
|
2002-03-06 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| We are not persuaded. There is no doubt that appellant and his co-accused acted in conspiracy because of their concerted actions in attacking and stabbing the victim. Direct proof is not essential to establish conspiracy; it may be inferred from the acts of the assailants before, during, and after the commission of the crime.[63] In a 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 an unmistakably common purpose or design to bring about the death of the victim.[64] Thus, the act of one becomes the act of all, and each of the accused will thereby be deemed equally guilty of the crime committed.[65] | |||||
|
2002-02-06 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The doctrinal rule is that findings of fact made by the trial court, which had the opportunity to directly observe the witnesses and to determine the probative value of the other testimonies are entitled to great weight and respect because the trial court is in a better position to assess the same, an opportunity not equally open to an appellate court.[33] Verily | |||||