Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ROSIE QUIDET v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR Nos. 192698-99 2015-04-22	RAYMUNDO E. ZAPANTA v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
To reiterate, in order to hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, he must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity. Conspiracy can be inferred from, and established by, the acts of the accused themselves when said acts point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interests. What is determinative is proof establishing that the accused were animated by one and the same purpose.[28] There must be intentional participation in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose. Conspiracy must, like the crime itself, be proven beyond reasonable doubt[29] for it is a facile device by which an accused may be ensnared and kept within the penal fold. Suppositions based on mere presumptions and not on solid facts do not constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt.[30]
	GR No. 182130 2013-06-19	IRIS KRISTINE BALOIS ALBERTO v. CA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
As may be gleaned from the Amended Resolution, the DOJ Secretary indicted Atty. Reyna, Arturo, Jessebel and Grace for these incidents only by reason of conspiracy. Yet, other than his general imputation thereof, the DOJ Secretary never provided any rational explanation for his finding of conspiracy against the aforementioned respondents. The rule is that conspiracy must be proved as clearly and convincingly as the commission of the offense itself. It can be inferred from and established by the acts of the accused themselves when said acts point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interests.[86] In this case, the Amended Resolution is bereft of any showing as to how the particular acts of the foregoing respondents figured into the common design of raping Iris and as such, the Court finds no reason to charge them for the same.
	GR No. 184681 2013-02-25	GERRY A. SALAPUDDIN v. CA VELASCO JR., J.
Furthermore, the very cases the appellate court cited provide that while conspiracy can be proven by circumstantial evidence, the series of evidence presented to establish an accused's participation in the conspiracy must be consistent and should lead to no other conclusion but his participation in the crime as a conspirator.[147] After all, the conspiracy itself must be proved as positively as the commission of the felony itself, for it is a "facile device by which an accused may be ensnared and kept within the penal fold."[148]