Quidet v. People
Quidet v. People
There were several facts of substance which militate against the finding that petitioner conspired with Taban and Tubo. First, there is no evidence that petitioner, Taban or Tubo had any grudge or enmity against Jimmy or Andrew. Second, the stabbing incident appears to have arisen from a purely accidental encounter between Taban's and Andrew's groups with both having had a drinking session. Third, unlike Taban and Tubo, petitioner was unarmed during the incident, thus, negating his intent to kill the victims. By the prosecution witnesses' account, petitioner's participation was limited to boxing Andrew and Jimmy after Taban and Tubo had stabbed the victims. Taken together, the evidence of the prosecution does not meet the test of moral certainty in order to establish that petitioner conspired with Taban and Tubo to commit the crimes of homicide and attempted homicide. 2. YES. The CA correctly modified the same. The crime committed was attempted homicide and not frustrated homicide because the stab wounds that Andrew sustained were not life-threatening. Although Taban and Tubo did not appeal their conviction, this part of the appellate court's judgment is favorable to them, thus, they are entitled to a reduction of their prison terms. The rule is that an appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter.