This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-06-29 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Well-entrenched in our jurisprudence is the principle that in order to sustain a conviction for the crime of robbery with homicide, it is necessary that the robbery itself be proved as conclusively as any other essential element of the crime. Where the evidence does not conclusively prove the robbery, the killing of the victim would be classified either as a simple homicide or murder, depending upon the absence or presence of any qualifying circumstance, and not the crime of robbery with homicide.[40] | |||||
|
2010-04-08 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Conspiracy can be inferred from and established by the acts of the accused themselves when said acts point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interests.[16] However, in determining whether conspiracy exists, it is not sufficient that the attack be joint and simultaneous for simultaneousness does not of itself demonstrate the concurrence of will or unity of action and purpose which are the bases of the responsibility of the assailants.[17] What is determinative is proof establishing that the accused were animated by one and the same purpose.[18] | |||||
|
2000-05-31 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Neither can we uphold accused-appellant's conviction for robbery based on the finding of the trial court that "the accused by means of violence or intimidation took away the wallet of the victim containing the amount of P1,500.00 according to Jose Barba, brother of the deceased."[27] Jose Barba did not testify but merely executed an affidavit which was not even submitted in evidence. More importantly, although there was evidence that Isauro's wallet was missing, there was no proof that Isauro had his wallet with him prior to the incident.[28] In order to sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide, it is necessary that the robbery itself be established as conclusively as any other essential element of the crime.[29] | |||||