This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2008-09-29 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In this case, accused-appellants have not given us sufficient reason to overturn the findings of the RTC and the CA. Accused-appellants reliance on the alleged unfair conduct of the police line-up has no merit. The records do not bear out any irregularity in the way the police conducted the line-up. Besides, a police line-up is not required for the proper and fair identification of offenders.[10] What is crucial is for the witness to positively declare during trial that the persons charged were the malefactors.[11] | |||||
|
2004-06-15 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Q- Do you want to convey to the Court that from the place where you were peeping and the place where the three (3) were, is there something that obstruct (sic) your view? A- Not so much of an obstruction but then you have to separate the leaves in order to peep, "hinahawi."[27] It bears stressing that the crime was committed in broad daylight, about 12:00 noon. We have ruled that where the conditions of visibility are favorable and the witness does not appear to harbor any ill motive against the malefactors, his testimony as to how the crime was committed and on the identities of perpetrators must be accepted.[28] There is no evidence on record of any ill motive on the part of Cesar to falsely implicate Catapang and the appellant in the heinous crime for which the latter could be sentenced to the capital penalty. | |||||
|
2003-12-11 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| The crime of robbery with homicide requires proof of the following elements: (1) the taking of personal property with violence or intimidation against persons; (2) the property taken belongs to another; (3) the taking was done with animo lucrandi; and (4) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, homicide was committed.[36] | |||||
|
2003-11-19 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| However, appellants may be spared from the extreme punishment of death. The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended,[46] now explicitly requires qualifying as well as aggravating circumstances to be expressly and specifically pleaded in the complaint or information, otherwise they will not be considered by the court even if proved during the trial,[47] thus:"Sec. 8. Designation of the offense. - The complaint or information shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be made to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it. | |||||