Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. DENNIS LEGASPI Y CUSI

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 124513 2001-10-17	ROBERTO ERQUIAGA v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
Conspiracy, as a rule, has to be established with the same quantum of proof as the crime itself. It has to be shown as clearly as the commission of the offense.[15] It need not be by direct evidence, but may take the form of circumstances which, if taken together, would conclusively show that the accused came to an agreement to commit a crime and decided to carry it out with their full cooperation and participation.[16] It may be deduced from the acts of the perpetrators before, during and after the commission of the crime, which are indicative of a common design, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments.[17]
	GR No. 136790 2001-03-26	PEOPLE v. MANUEL GALVEZ Y ESTANISLAO MENDOZA, J.
By entering a plea of not guilty and participating actively in the trial, however, accused-appellant Galvez waived his right to raise the issue of the illegality of his arrest. It is now settled that objection to a warrant of arrest or the procedure by which a court acquires jurisdiction over the person of an accused must be made before he enters his plea, otherwise the objection is deemed waived.[23] The fact that the arrest was illegal does not render the subsequent proceedings void and deprive the State of its right to convict the guilty when all the facts point to the culpability of the accused.[24]
	GR No. 123147 2000-10-13	PEOPLE v. JOSEPH MANENG Y ORTESA PARDO, J.
The fact that the housekeepers were killed first before the robbery does not detract from accused-appellant's culpability for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. The homicide may precede the robbery or may occur after the robbery, as what is essential is that there is a direct relation, an intimate connection between the robbery and the killing.[20]
	GR Nos. 108135-36 2000-08-14	POTENCIANA M. EVANGELISTA v. PEOPLE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
aside. For conviction must rest no less than on hard evidence showing that the accused, with moral certainty, is guilty of the crime charged. Short of these constitutional mandate and statutory safeguard --- that a person is presumed innocent until the contrary is proved --- the Court is then left without discretion and is duty bound to render a judgment of acquittal.[13] WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED. This Court's Decision dated September 30, 1999 is RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner is ACQUITTED of the charge against her.