This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2006-10-23 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In the offense of robbery with homicide, a crime primarily classified as one against property and not against persons, the prosecution has to firmly establish the following elements: (a) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against the person; (b) the property thus taken belongs to another; (c) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi; and (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, the crime of homicide, which is therein used in a generic sense, was committed.[33] The accused must be shown to have the principal purpose of committing robbery, the homicide being committed either by reason of or on occasion of the robbery.[34] The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life. So long as the intention of the felons was to rob, the killing may occur before, during or after the robbery.[35] The original design must have been robbery, and the homicide, even if it precedes or is subsequent to the robbery, must have a direct relation to, or must be perpetrated with a view to consummate the robbery. The taking of the property should not be merely an afterthought which arose subsequently to the killing.[36] | |||||
|
2006-08-07 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| It must be stressed that the appellant's defense of denial and alibi was rejected by the trial court. The appellate court ruled as follows: Contrary to the defense's posturing, the accused-appellant's alibi and denial cannot prevail over the positive identification by the private complainant as regards her rapist (People vs. Remoto, 244 SCRA 506). Moreover, for alibi to qualify as a valid defense, it must first be shown that it was physically impossible for the accused to have been present in the locus criminis at the supposed time of commission of the crime (People vs. Caguioa, Sr., 259 SCRA 403). In this case, the accused-appellant cannot cavil at the fact that the house of Carmen Bolo where the private complainant was staying was only a few minutes walk from the house of the accused-appellant.[40] The appellant's denial of the crime charged constitutes negative self-serving evidence which cannot prevail over the positive testimony of Emily that the appellant had defiled her.[41] Moreover, alibi as a defense is inherently weak because it is easy to concoct and difficult to disprove. The appellant must prove, with clear and convincing evidence at the trial that he was in a place other than the situs of the crime, such that it was physically impossible for him to have committed the same.[42] The requirement of time and place must be strictly followed.[43] | |||||
|
2004-06-14 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| Thus, for circumstantial evidence to suffice, (1) there should be more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.[57] Like an ornate tapestry created out of interwoven fibers which cannot be plucked out and assayed a strand at a time apart from the others, the circumstances proved should constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion that the accused, to the exclusion of all others, is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.[58] The test to determine whether or not the circumstantial evidence on record are sufficient to convict the accused is that the series of the circumstances proved must be consistent with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence.[59] Accordingly, we have set guidelines in appreciating circumstantial evidence: (1) it should be acted upon with caution; (2) all the essential facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt; (3) the facts must exclude every theory but that of guilt; and (4) the facts must establish such a certainty of guilt of the accused as to convince the judgment beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is the one who committed the offense.[60] | |||||
|
2001-12-05 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| So too must the penalty imposed by the trial court for the death of Corazon Cajipo be modified. The penalty for Homicide is Reclusion Temporal.[89] Considering that there is neither any mitigating nor aggravating circumstance, the imposable penalty as provided in Article 249, in conjunction with Article 64 (1) of the Revised Penal Code, is Reclusion Temporal in its medium period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the proper penalty should be Ten (10) years of Prision Mayor, as minimum, to Seventeen (17) Years and Four (4) Months of Reclusion Temporal as maximum. | |||||