People v Valdez 1988
Facts: Issue: Whether or not the accused act a coconspirator in the crime charged. Held: We hold that the prosecution's evidence was more than adequate to sustain the finding of the trial court of a conspiracy between Danilo Valdez and Simplicio Orodio. Conspiracy being present, it does not matter that the prosecution had failed to show who as between the two actually pulled the trigger of the shotgun that killed Eleno Maquiling. 17 Both Danilo Valdez and Simplicio Orodio are liable as coconspirators since any act of a coconspirator becomes the act of the other regardless of the precise degree of participation in the act. People v Nacional Gr No. 111294-95 1995
Facts: The accused charged with murder in a two separate information and later been consolidated by the Regional Trial Court. One of the accused pleaded not guilty. The trial thereafter ensued. A decision finding the accused, except who pleaded not guilty, guilty of two counts of murder. The five accused appealed to the court. It was only Mirabete left who did not withdraw his appeal to the court and pursued the same. In his appeal, he insisted that he was watching a volleyball game when the shooting crime happened and he denies being a member of the NPA. Reviewing the records, it was found out that accused-appellant was part of the group that conspired the killing and
actually killed the Lagasons. Thus, the decision and hence the appeal. Issue: whether or not the accused is liable as co-conspirator of the crime. Held: Witnesses presented were positively identified the accused-appellant in the person of the Nacional. Clearly, the evidence proved beyond doubt that the accused-appellant was a civilian member of the CPP-NPA at Daraga, and was part of the group of CPP-NPA that deliberately planned the killing of the Lagasons. A conspiracy, once established, makes each of the conspirators liable for the acts of the others. All conspirators are liable as co-principals regardless of the extent of their participation because in contemplation contemplation of law, the act of one is the act of all. Hence, the decision of the Supreme Court is affirmative in so far the criminal liability of the accused is concerned. People v Agacer G.R. No. 177751 January 7, 2013
FACTS The victim, Cesario Agacer, was clearing and preparing the soil bedding section of his farm in preparation for the rice seedlings intended for the coming planting season. Genesis Delanter, his brother Andy, Rafael, and brother Roden were at the nearby rice field harvesting the palay that Cesario had raised.
Suddenly, Florencio, Eddie, Elynor, Franklin, and Eric, all surnamed Agacer, came out of the nearby banana plantation and went in the direction of Cesario. The group of men then surrounded Cesario and intimidated him. Cesario felt the hostilities and tried to get away. But the accused started fire on Cesario’s harvest which prompted Cesario to return for his burning crops. While Cesario was trying to put the fire out, Florencio ordered to go near Cesario. Eddie did what was told and pulled out a shotgun from the rice sack that he was holding and shot Cesario on the left portion of his chest. As Cesario fell, they fired then another shot inflicting mortal wounds on Cesario. The gang of men then fled the scene. The Supreme Court affirmed the guilt of the accused. ISSUE Whether or not the Agacer’s have created a conspiracy on committing the crime. RULING The court held that the conspiracy was sufficiently established when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it, which in this case, been proven. The acts of the assailants constitute proof of their unanimity in design, intent and execution. In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all, and so appellants’ assertion that they must be liable only to their individual acts was not given merit. Hence, the affirmation of the Supreme Court to the prior decisions of the lowers courts.
People vs Chua Chiong 1954
Facts: Gocheco published in a newspaper a libelous letter entitled, “Doubtful Citizenship”, which showed Chu Hiong as Filipino whose citizenship was acquired by questionable means. As latter’s defense, he gave a libelous article in the “Speaking Seriously” column of the Manila Chronicle, a daily of extensive circulation. I: Whether Chua Hiong’s defense is justified? Held: Yes. Self-defense is a man’s inborn right. Once the aspersion is cast its sting clings and the one thus defamed may avail of himself all the necessary means to shake it off. He may hit back with another libel which, if adequate, will be justified. CASE DIGEST ON PEOPLE v. DELIMA [46 Phil. 738 (1922)
Facts: Lorenzo Napoleon escaped from jail. Poiiceman Felipe Delima found him in the house of Jorge Alegria, armed with a pointed piece of bamboo in the shape of a lance. Delima ordered his surrender but Napoleon answered with a stroke of his lance. The policeman dodged it, fired his revolver but didn’t hit Napoleon. The criminal tried to ran away, not throwing his weapon; the policeman shot him dead. Delima was tried and convicted for homicide; he appealed.
Issue: Whether or not Delima performed in fulfillment of her duty or lawful exercise of her office. Held: The SC ruled that Delima must be acquitted. The court held that the killing was done in performance of a duty. Napoleon was under the obligation to surrender and his disobedience with a weapon compelled Delima to kill him. The action was justified by the circumstances.