This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2008-10-17 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In the present case, petitioner is imputed with intent to gain for his alleged failure to explain why Lucia's wooden bench was in his possession. Animus lucrandi or intent to gain is an internal act which can be established through the overt acts of the offender. The unlawful taking of another's property gives rise to the presumption that the act was committed with intent to gain. This presumption holds unless special circumstances reveal a different intent on the part of the perpetrator.[12] The term "gain" is not merely limited to pecuniary benefit but also includes the benefit which in any other sense may be derived or expected from the act which is performed. Thus, the mere use of the thing which was taken without the owner's consent constitutes gain.[13] | |||||
|
2008-08-13 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| With regard to Gianan, since he did not join David in the present petition, we hold that find no reason to disturb the trial court's correctly ruled finding that there was conspiracy. Petitioners' David, and Gianan's behavior, in stabbing the victim Datalio and trying to hit him with an adobe stone showed their community of design. In People vs. Reyes,[18] we held, thus:xxx In conspiracy, proof of an actual planning of the perpetration of the crime is not a condition precedent. It may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was committed or inferred from the acts of the accused evincing a joint or common purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest. | |||||
|
2005-04-06 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| Similarly, intent to gain or animus lucrandi is presumed when one is found in possession of stolen goods precisely because the taking of another's property is an unlawful act. So it is that in People vs. Reyes,[11] the Court held:Accused-appellant's contention that the animus lucrandi was not sufficiently established by the prosecution is devoid of merit. Animus lucrandi or intent to gain is an internal act which can be established through the overt acts of the offender. Although proof of motive for the crime is essential when the evidence of the robbery is circumstantial, intent to gain or animus lucrandi may be presumed from the furtive taking of useful property pertaining to another, unless special circumstances reveal a different intent on the part of the perpetrator. The intent to gain may be presumed from the proven unlawful taking. In the case at bar, the act of taking the victim's wristwatch by one of the accused Cergontes while accused-appellant Reyes poked a knife behind him sufficiently gave rise to the presumption. | |||||
|
2003-11-19 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Although there are some inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, specifically as to the exact number of persons who entered the compound, due probably to the general confusion that characterized the incident, we hold that this imperfection does not diminish their credibility. What is important is the fact that there is a sustained consistency in their testimonies relating the principal elements of the crime and positively identifying the appellants as the perpetrators.[40] | |||||
|
2003-11-19 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| The elements of robbery with homicide are the following: (a) the taking of personal property with violence or intimidation against persons or with force upon things; (b) the property taken belongs to another; (c) the taking be done with animus lucrandi (intent to gain); and (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, homicide in its generic sense was committed. The offense becomes a special complex crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code if the victim is killed on the occasion or by reason of the robbery.[43] | |||||