This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2003-03-28 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Under established jurisprudence, two conditions must concur to establish treachery: (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate, and (2) the means of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted.[17] We have held in a line of cases that:[c]ircumstances which qualify criminal responsibility, such as treachery, cannot rest on mere conjecture, no matter how reasonable or probable such conjecture may be. They must be based on facts of unquestionable existence. Such circumstances must be proved as indubitably as the crime itself. Treachery as a qualifying circumstance should be established by proof beyond reasonable doubt.[18] | |||||
|
2002-02-15 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| There is an allegation of conspiracy in the information charging Mario with raping Chanet. We find, however, no evidence of conspiracy in this case. Conspiracy must be shown as clearly and conclusively as the commission of the crime itself.[58] Here we find nothing in the records to support a finding that appellants were acting in concert and with a common design in molesting Chanet. That they watched the abuse take place is insufficient proof to show unity in purpose and action. Hence, since only Mario had been positively shown to have committed acts of lasciviousness on Chanet, only he should suffer the consequences. | |||||