This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2009-02-10 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| As to how the money was taken, it was proven that P100,000.00 was unlawfully taken by the petitioner from R&R, with intent to gain and through intimidation. In robbery, there must be an unlawful taking or apoderamiento, which is defined as the taking of items without the consent of the owner, or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things.[37] Taking is considered complete from the moment the offender gains possession of the thing, even if he has no opportunity to dispose of the same. In the instant case, it was adequately proven that petitioner received and took possession of the brown envelope containing the money; she even placed her wallet and handkerchief inside the envelope. At that point, there was already "taking." | |||||
|
2008-11-20 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| We do not, however, agree that the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength had been sufficiently proved. To appreciate the attendant circumstance of abuse of superior strength, what should be considered is whether the aggressors took advantage of their combined strength in order to consummate the offense.[13] Mere superiority in number is not enough to constitute superior strength.[14] There must be clear proof that the assailants purposely used excessive force out of proportion to the defense available to the person attacked.[15] | |||||
|
2008-04-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Homicide is said to have been committed by reason or on the occasion of robbery if, for instance, it is committed to (a) facilitate the robbery or the escape of the culprit; (b) to preserve the possession by the culprit of the loot; (c) to prevent discovery of the commission of the robbery; or (d) to eliminate witnesses to the commission of the crime.[13] In Robbery with Homicide, so long as the intention of the felon is to rob, the killing may occur before, during or after the robbery. It is immaterial that death would supervene by mere accident, or that the victim of homicide is other than the victim of robbery, or that two or more persons are killed. Once a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, the felony committed is the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide.[14] | |||||
|
2008-03-04 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| She cannot be faulted for doing what she did. Fear of reprisal and the natural reluctance of a witness to get involved in a criminal case are sufficient explanations for a witness' delay in reporting a crime to the authorities.[43] Initial reluctance to volunteer information regarding a crime due to fear of reprisal is common enough that it has been judicially declared as not affecting a witness' credibility.[44] The fact that Mrs. Bona did not right away submit a written statement to the police was natural and within the bounds of expected human behavior. Her action revealed a spontaneous and natural reaction of a person who had yet to fully comprehend a shocking and traumatic event. Besides, the workings of the human mind are unpredictable. People react differently to emotional stress. There is simply no standard form of behavioral response that can be expected from anyone when confronted with a strange, startling or frightful occurrence.[45] In her case, Mrs. Bona said she was shocked and lost her composure because that was the first time she saw someone being killed in front of her.[46] | |||||
|
2006-12-06 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The fact that Simplicio did not immediately give a sworn statement to the authorities about the incident and his initial hesitation to testify in court on the same does not necessarily destroy the genuineness of his testimony. Witnesses are usually reluctant to volunteer information about a criminal case or are unwilling to be involved in or dragged into criminal investigations due to a variety of valid reasons.[32] Fear of reprisal and the natural reluctance of a witness to get involved in a criminal case are sufficient explanations for a witness' delay in reporting the crime to authorities.[33] After the incident, Simplicio feared for his and his family's safety if he testified against appellant. It is only after the lapse of one year that he agreed to divulge information about the incident in order to make sure that the possibility of a threat to his life or his loved ones is already diminished, if not totally avoided. Furthermore, no ill-motive can be imputed to Simplicio for testifying against appellant. Appellant himself admitted that he does not know of any reason why Simplicio would testify against him.[34] | |||||
|
2006-10-30 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| We are not persuaded. Ochinang testified that he had tried to stop Taan and Marquez from tying Ladaga's hands,[53] but could not because Taan was holding a gun and he had taken shabu.[54] Ochinang also implored Taan and Marquez four (4) times not to kill Ladaga to no avail.[55] The reason Ochinang failed to immediately report the incident to the authorities was his fear of Taan, who had warned him not to disclose the incident, and his several bodyguards.[56] Pertinently, we have ruled in People v. Hernandez,[57] that: Fear of reprisal and the natural reluctance of a witness to get involved in a criminal case are sufficient explanations for a witness' delay in reporting the crime to the authorities. Such failure in making a prompt report to the proper authorities does not destroy the truth per se of the complaint. Likewise, the natural hesitance of the witnesses in this country to volunteer information about a criminal case, and their unwillingness to be involved or dragged into a criminal investigation is common, and has been judicially declared not to affect their credibility.[58] The supposed grudge Ochinang had against Taan which provoked the filing of the criminal case is flimsy to be believed. Even assuming that the allegation were true, the existence of a grudge does not automatically render Ochinang's testimony bereft of credibility.[59] | |||||
|
2006-10-30 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| We are not persuaded. Ochinang testified that he had tried to stop Taan and Marquez from tying Ladaga's hands,[53] but could not because Taan was holding a gun and he had taken shabu.[54] Ochinang also implored Taan and Marquez four (4) times not to kill Ladaga to no avail.[55] The reason Ochinang failed to immediately report the incident to the authorities was his fear of Taan, who had warned him not to disclose the incident, and his several bodyguards.[56] Pertinently, we have ruled in People v. Hernandez,[57] that: Fear of reprisal and the natural reluctance of a witness to get involved in a criminal case are sufficient explanations for a witness' delay in reporting the crime to the authorities. Such failure in making a prompt report to the proper authorities does not destroy the truth per se of the complaint. Likewise, the natural hesitance of the witnesses in this country to volunteer information about a criminal case, and their unwillingness to be involved or dragged into a criminal investigation is common, and has been judicially declared not to affect their credibility.[58] The supposed grudge Ochinang had against Taan which provoked the filing of the criminal case is flimsy to be believed. Even assuming that the allegation were true, the existence of a grudge does not automatically render Ochinang's testimony bereft of credibility.[59] | |||||