This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2009-10-30 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In this case, both the RTC and the Court of Appeals gave weight to the candid and forthright identification by the prosecution witnesses of the appellants as the authors of the murder. Rightly so, since the place was adequately lighted by a kerosene lamp and the witnesses were sufficiently familiar with the appellants who were their neighbors. Appellants' contention that the victim's daughter and sister attributed the murder to them because of political rivalry and pending lawsuits between Domingo Alpapara and the victim cannot stand scrutiny. The Court has consistently held that relatives of a victim would not avenge the death of their kin by blaming it on persons whom they know to be innocent.[29] This is because the relatives, more than anybody else, would be concerned with obtaining justice for the victim by the felons being brought to face the law.[30] | |||||
|
2009-02-12 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| A special complex crime of robbery with homicide takes place when a homicide is committed either by reason, or on the occasion, of the robbery.[44] To sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide, the prosecution must prove the following elements: (1) the taking of personal property belonging to another; (2) with intent to gain; (3) with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; and (4) on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, the crime of homicide, as used in its generic sense, was committed. [45] A conviction requires certitude that the robbery is the main purpose, and objective of the malefactor and the killing is merely incidental to the robbery.[46] The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life but the killing may occur before, during or after the robbery.[47] | |||||
|
2008-12-24 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| There is robbery with homicide when a homicide is committed either by reason, or on occasion, of the robbery.[72] To sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide, the prosecution must prove the following elements: (1) the taking of personal property belonging to another; (2) with intent to gain; (3) with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; and (4) on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, the crime of homicide, as used in its generic sense, was committed.[73] A conviction requires certitude that the robbery is the main purpose and objective of the malefactor and the killing is merely incidental to the robbery.[74] The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life but the killing may occur before, during or after the robbery.[75] | |||||
|
2005-10-20 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| We do not doubt Joseph�s identification of Joey Guiyab. Even if he did not know the name of the petitioner prior to the incident, he was able to identify him in open court. Besides, Joseph maintained that although he did not know the name of the petitioner, he knew him by his face.[9] There is nothing in law or jurisprudence which requires, as a condition sine qua non, that, for a positive identification of a felon by a prosecution witness to be good, the witness must first know the former personally.[10] The witness need not have to know the name of the accused for so long as he recognizes his face.[11] We ruled that �knowing the identity of an accused is different from knowing his name. Hence, the positive identification of the malefactor should not be disregarded just because his name was supplied to the eyewitness. The weight of the eyewitness account is premised on the fact that the said witness saw the accused commit the crime, and not because he knew his name.�[12] | |||||