Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 37 views

    991 Saldua Vs People

    Uploaded by

    erica peji
    Saldua was present and armed when Vertudez shot and killed the victim. Mere presence does not make one a co-conspirator in a crime. As Saldua did not stop the shooting and his purpose for being there was unclear, he is liable as an accomplice but not a co-conspirator. To be a co-conspirator there must be evidence of prior knowledge of and agreement to the criminal plan.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    991 Saldua Vs People

    Uploaded by

    erica peji
    37 views1 page
    Saldua was present and armed when Vertudez shot and killed the victim. Mere presence does not make one a co-conspirator in a crime. As Saldua did not stop the shooting and his purpose for being there was unclear, he is liable as an accomplice but not a co-conspirator. To be a co-conspirator there must be evidence of prior knowledge of and agreement to the criminal plan.

    Original Description:

    991 Saldua vs People

    Original Title

    991 Saldua vs People

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Saldua was present and armed when Vertudez shot and killed the victim. Mere presence does not make one a co-conspirator in a crime. As Saldua did not stop the shooting and his purpose for being there was unclear, he is liable as an accomplice but not a co-conspirator. To be a co-conspirator there must be evidence of prior knowledge of and agreement to the criminal plan.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    37 views1 page

    991 Saldua Vs People

    Uploaded by

    erica peji
    Saldua was present and armed when Vertudez shot and killed the victim. Mere presence does not make one a co-conspirator in a crime. As Saldua did not stop the shooting and his purpose for being there was unclear, he is liable as an accomplice but not a co-conspirator. To be a co-conspirator there must be evidence of prior knowledge of and agreement to the criminal plan.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    CRIMINAL LAW; PRESENCE IN THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME DOES NOT MAKE

    ONE A CO-CONSPIRATOR BUT ONLY AS AN ACCOMPLICE

    Question: At the time the crime of homicide was committed by Vertudez, Saldua, who
    was armed, was present, behind Vertudez when the latter fired his gun. What is the
    liability of Saldua?
    Answer: Saldua is liable as an accomplice. Mere presence does not make one a co-
    conspirator in the crime. Other than being present, it was not established what
    petitioner's purpose was when he stood behind Vertudez bearing a firearm. By merely
    standing behind Vertudez, it cannot be ascertained whether petitioner had prior
    knowledge of the criminal design of the principal perpetrator or that he was there to give
    moral support. What was clear is that he was armed and he did not stop Vertudez from
    shooting the victim. The mere fact that a person is present when a crime is committed,
    when such presence does not have the purpose of encouraging the criminal and when
    there is no previous agreement between them as to the commission of the crime, will
    make the former responsible only as accomplice in the crime committed.[35] This
    conclusion is in keeping with the principle that when there is doubt, such doubt should
    be resolved in favor of the accused. (Saldua vs People, G.R. No. 210920, December
    10, 2018, J. Reyes, Jr.)

    You might also like