This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-07-30 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| However, contrary to the findings of both the trial and appellate courts, this Court finds that the use of unlicensed firearm was not duly proven by the prosecution. The evidence indicates that none of the firearms used in the November 3, 1999 massacre were ever recovered and presented in the trial court. Nevertheless, there is jurisprudence which states that the existence of the firearm can be established by testimony, even without the presentation of the firearm.[46] The testimony of the prosecution witnesses had established that appellant Camat used a long firearm of unknown make and caliber to shoot his victims but that would still be insufficient to attribute to his felonious act the qualifying circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm in light of jurisprudence which asserts that in order for the same to be considered, adequate proof, such as written or testimonial evidence, must be presented showing that the appellant was not a licensed firearm holder.[47] There was no such proof in the case at bar. | |||||
|
2011-10-05 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| The facts established showed that the constitutive elements of rape with homicide were consummated, and it is immaterial that the person killed in this case is someone other than the woman victim of the rape. An analogy may be drawn from our rulings in cases of robbery with homicide, where the component acts of homicide, physical injuries and other offenses have been committed by reason or on the occasion of robbery. In People v. De Leon,[45]we expounded on the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, as follows: In robbery with homicide, the original criminal design of the malefactor is to commit robbery, with homicide perpetrated on the occasion or by reason of the robbery. The intent to commit robbery must precede the taking of human life. The homicide may take place before, during or after the robbery. It is only the result obtained, without reference or distinction as to the circumstances, causes or modes or persons intervening in the commission of the crime that has to be taken into consideration. There is no such felony of robbery with homicide through reckless imprudence or simple negligence. The constitutive elements of the crime, namely, robbery with homicide, must be consummated. | |||||
|
2009-09-04 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| The finding of the trial court on the presence of conspiracy merits the Court's concurrence too, it being evident from the orchestrated manner, indicative of a common design, in which petitioners and their cohorts pursued their unlawful purpose. Once conspiracy is shown, the act of one is the act of all the conspirators. The precise extent or modality of participation of each of them becomes secondary, since all the conspirators are principals.[33] | |||||