This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2016-01-12 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Convictions can be sustained even when there is illegal identification as long as there are other evidence tying the crime to the accused. In People v. Ibañez,[140] the witness who identified the accused in the line-up died during the trial.[141] Only the NBI agent testified without providing details regarding the line-up. Hence, this court found that the out-of-court identification was unreliable.[142] Despite this pronouncement, the conviction was affirmed due to the presence of circumstantial evidence.[143] | |||||
|
2015-01-21 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| In People v. Ibañez,[15] the Court exhaustively explained that "[a] special complex crime of robbery with homicide takes place when a homicide is committed either by reason, or on the occasion, of the robbery. To sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide, the prosecution must prove the following elements: (1) the taking of personal property belonging to another; (2) with intent to gain; (3) with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; and (4) on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, the crime of homicide, as used in its generic sense, was committed. A conviction requires certitude that the robbery is the main purpose, and [the] objective of the malefactor and the killing is merely incidental to the robbery. The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life but the killing may occur before, during or after the robbery."[16] Homicide is said to have been committed by reason or on occasion of robbery if, for instance, it was committed: (a) to 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 in the commission of the crime.[17] | |||||