This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2004-03-17 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| Anacito's attack came without warning; it was deliberate and unexpected, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no opportunity to resist or defend himself.[65] We do not find merit in appellant's contention that he cannot be convicted of murder for the death of Demetrio Jr. because treachery was not alleged with "specificity" as a qualifying circumstance in the information. Such contention is belied by the information itself, which | |||||
|
2003-12-11 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| "Facts show that indeed accused Eduardo delivered the mortal hack blows that nearly totally severed the neck of the victim. Thus, viewed in this light, said accused indeed killed the victim. However, this fact does not rule out the fact that accused had company while hacking to death his victim. The uncontroverted fact alone that the cadaver of the victim sustained not only hack wounds but likewise abrasions indubitably show that said accused was not alone at the crime scene and in attacking the victim." [52] Finally, conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused -- before, during and after the crime -- which are indicative of design, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments.[53] Once it is shown that there was conspiracy in action or action in concert to achieve a criminal design, the act of one is deemed the act of all the conspirators; and the precise extent or modality of participation of each of them becomes secondary. | |||||
|
2003-08-28 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| The records disclose that Ernesto voluntarily surrendered to the authorities on 22 August 1997.[44] For voluntary surrender to be appreciated, three elements must concur: (1) that the offender has not yet been arrested; (2) that the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or to the latter's agent; and; (3) that the surrender was voluntary.[45] These three requisites were present in the case at bar. | |||||
|
2002-02-06 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| That there was conspiracy among the accused is unmistakable. Conspiracy may 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.[24] In the case at bar, the prosecution witnesses saw the four accused in the vicinity of the crime scene, they (the accused) carried firearms and fired at them, the police recovered empty shells matching these firearms at the scene of the crime after the firing took place, and all the accused ran towards the mango trees going to Malicer after the attack. The four accused clearly conspired. When conspiracy is shown, the act of one is the act of all the conspirators.[25] It is of no import therefore who delivered the fatal shots and the shots resulting in the injury of the victims as the act of one of the accused is the act of all. | |||||