This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2016-01-27 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Both the RTC and CA correctly appreciated the presence of conspiracy. Conspiracy presupposes unity of purpose and unity of action towards the realization of an unlawful objective among the accused.[41] Its existence can be inferred from the individual acts of the accused, which if taken as a whole are in fact related, and indicative of a concurrence of sentiment.[42] In this case, conspiracy was manifested in the spontaneous and coordinated acts of the accused, where two of them delivered the initial attack on Rodolfo by stoning, while another struck him with a shovel and the third held him so that the other two can simultaneously stab Rodolfo. It was only when Rodolfo laid helpless on the ground and had lost consciousness that the accused hurriedly left the scene. This chain of events leading to the commission of the crime adequately established a conspiracy among them. | |||||
|
2004-06-14 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| Both Diosdado III and Godofredo denied the charges hurled against them. But, while it is true that alibi and denial are the weakest of the defenses as they can easily be fabricated,[68] absent such clear and positive identification, the doctrine that the defense of denial cannot prevail over positive identification of the accused must yield to the constitutional presumption of innocence.[69] Hence, while denial is concededly fragile and unstable, the conviction of the accused cannot be based thereon.[70] The rule in criminal law is firmly entrenched that verdicts of conviction must be predicated on the strength of the evidence for the prosecution and not on the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[71] | |||||
|
2004-03-10 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| There must be positive and conclusive evidence that Padayhag acted in concert with Castillo to commit the same criminal act. To hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by conspiracy, there must be a sufficient and unbroken chain of events that directly and definitely links the accused to the commission of the crime without any space for baseless suppositions or frenzied theories to filter through.[26] Indeed, conspiracy must be proven as clearly as the commission of the crime itself.[27] | |||||