This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2003-06-10 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The Court and the trial court as well cannot presume that there was robbery merely because Dionisio Luayon said so. It is essential to prove the intent to rob.[32] This necessarily includes evidence to the effect that the appellant carried away the effects or personalty of the deceased.[33] In the instant case, there is absence of positive proof that appellant intended to rob the deceased or that he was the one who carried away the money belonging to the victims. The burden of proof rests on the prosecution to establish that the money amounting to P10,000.00 as alleged in the Information was taken from the victims on February 21, 1990, and, that it was taken by appellant or at the very least, by his companions. In failing to discharge such burden of proof, the Court cannot in conscience rely on mere presumptions and conjectures to hold that the appellant had committed robbery on the night in question. | |||||