This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-06-08 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| As to appellant Al. In the absence of conspiracy, the liability of the accused is individual and not collective. [77] Since appellant Al is liable only for the crime of serious illegal detention, he is jointly and severally liable only to pay the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. For serious illegal detention, the award of civil indemnity is in the amount of P50,000.00, in line with prevailing jurisprudence. [78] | |||||
|
2005-06-08 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The general rule is that the factual findings of the trial court, including its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and the probative weight thereof, as well as the conclusions of the trial court based on its factual findings, are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect, especially if such findings are affirmed by the CA. This is so because the trial court is able to observe at close range the demeanor and deportment of the witnesses as they testify.[25] However, the general rule does not apply if the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances which, if considered, will warrant a modification or reversal of the outcome of the case.[26] | |||||
|
2004-01-15 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The Court likewise finds that conspiracy was not established. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.[42] Like the offense itself, conspiracy must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.[43] Thus, it has been held that neither joint nor simultaneous action is per se sufficient proof of conspiracy.[44] | |||||