Case Digest - focusing on Admissibility of DNA evidence in the Supreme Court of the Philippines.Full description
People vs AmaguinFull description
John Dy vs PeopleFull description
People v Acierto case digestFull description
People Yatar EvidenceFull description
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. ANTONIO COMADRE [G.R. No. 153559. June 8, 2!" at around 7:00 in the evening of August 6, 1995, Robert Agbanlog with four others were having a drinking spree on the terrace of the house of Roberts father when the! noticed appellants Antonio "o#adre, $eorge "o#adre and %anilo &o'ano stopped in front of the house( )hile his co#panions looked on, Antonio suddenl! threw an ob*ect on the roof of the terrace and fled i##ediatel! together with his co#panions( +he ob*ect which happened to be a hand grenade suddenl! eplode ripping a hole in the roof( Robert and his co#panions were hit b! shrapnel and slu#ped unconscious on the floor( +he! were all rushed to the -ospital however Robert died before reaching the hospital( +he undisputed facts show that when Antonio was in the act of throwing the hand grenade, his co#panions #erel! looked on without uttering a single word of encourage#ent or perfor#ed an! act to assist hi#( +he trial court held that the #ere presence of the two provided encourage#ent and a sense of securit! to Antonio, thus proving the eistence of conspirac!( .ssue "an there be a conspirac! based on the foregoing facts/ Ruling A conspirac! #ust be shown to eist as clearl! and convincingl! as the co##ission of the cri#e itself( ere presence of a person at the scene of the cri#e does not #ake hi# a conspirator for conspirac! transcends co#panionship( +he evidence shows that $eorge "o#adre and %anilo &o'ano did not have an! participation in the co##ission of the cri#e and #ust therefore be set free( +heir #ere presence at the scene of the cri#e as well as their close relationship with Antonio are insufficient to establish conspirac! considering that the! perfor#ed no positive act in furtherance of the cri#e( either was it proven that their act of running awa! with Antonio was an act of giving #oral assistance to his cri#inal act( +he ratiocination of the trial court that their presence provided encourage#ent and sense of securit! to Antonio, is devoid of an! factual basis( 2uch finding is not supported b! the evidence on record and cannot therefore be a valid basis of a finding of conspirac!(
