People v Valdez 1988
Thus, the
Facts:
Issue: Whether or not the accused act a co-
conspirator 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 co-
conspirators since any act of a co-
conspirator 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.
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 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 Cesarios 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 Agacers 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 latters defense, he gave a libelous
article in the Speaking Seriously column of
the Manila Chronicle, a daily of extensive
circulation.
I: Whether Chua Hiongs defense is
justified?
Held:
Yes. Self-defense is a mans 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 didnt 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.