This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-11-25 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Under Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code, there is conspiracy when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decided to commit it. Conspiracy exists where the participants perform specific acts that indicate unity of purpose in accomplishing the same unlawful object.[45] The presence of conspiracy is implied where the separate acts committed, taken collectively, emanate from a concerted and associated action.[46] | |||||
|
2009-04-24 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Q. What happened? A. After they boarded, the man from Bulacan said, ano pare, malinis na paggawa nito. Then, I was told by Botong to bring them to Hilltop.[33] Based on the foregoing, the testimonies of Janet and Oswaldo clearly link appellant to the planning of the crime. True, as intimated by appellant, she may not have been at the scene of the crime at the time of the explosion;[34] but then again, if she was, then she would have suffered the same fate as Reynaldo. Moreover, the nature of the crime and the manner of its execution, i.e., via a booby trap, does not demand the physical presence of the perpetrator at the very time of its commission. In fact, the very manner in which it was carried out necessitated prior scheming and execution for it to succeed. Thus, appellant's absence from the actual scene of the crime does not negate conspiracy with Rolando in plotting the death of her husband. A conspiracy exists even if not all the parties committed the same act, but the participants performed specific acts that indicated unity of purpose in accomplishing a criminal design.[35] Moreover, direct proof of previous agreement to commit an offense is not necessary to prove conspiracy -- conspiracy may be proven by circumstantial evidence.[36] | |||||