This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-04-01 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Section 2 of RA 6539 defines carnapping as "the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter's consent, or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things." The crime of carnapping with homicide is punishable under Section 14[61] of the said law, as amended by Section 20 of RA 7659. To prove the special complex crime of carnapping with homicide, there must be proof not only of the essential elements of carnapping, but also that it was the original criminal design of the culprit and the killing was perpetrated "in the course of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof." Thus, the prosecution in this case has the burden of proving that: (1) Mallari took the Toyota FX taxi; (2) his original criminal design was carnapping; (3) he killed the driver, Medel; and (4) the killing was perpetrated "in the course of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof."[62] | |||||
|
2009-04-24 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The prosecution was able to prove the crime beyond reasonable doubt. It was able to establish two things: first, the fact of the commission of the crime charged or the presence of all the elements of the offense; and second, the fact that the accused was the perpetrator of the crime.[15] | |||||
|
2006-04-18 |
PANGANIBAN, CJ |
||||
| Statements identifying the assailant, if uttered by a victim on the verge of death, are entitled to the highest degree of credence and respect.[38] Persons aware of an impending death have been known to be genuinely truthful in their words and extremely scrupulous in their accusations.[39] The dying declaration is given credence, on the premise that no one who knows of one's impending death will make a careless and false accusation.[40] Hence, not infrequently, pronouncements of guilt have been allowed to rest solely on the dying declaration of the deceased victim.[41] | |||||