This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2008-08-06 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Likewise, the intent to gain may already be presumed in this case. Animus lucrandi or intent to gain is an internal act, which can be established through the overt acts of the offender.[99] The unlawful act of the taking of Larry's watch at gunpoint after the declaration of a hold-up already speaks well enough for itself. No other intent may be gleaned from the acts of the appellant's group at that moment other than to divest Larry of his personal property. | |||||
|
2003-04-01 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, it must be stressed that the acts committed by appellant constituted the crime of carnapping even if the deceased was the driver of the vehicle and not the owner. The settled rule is that, in crimes of unlawful taking of property through intimidation or violence, it is not necessary that the person unlawfully divested of the personal property be the owner thereof. What is simply required is that the property taken does not belong to the offender. Actual possession of the property by the person dispossessed suffices. So long as there is apoderamiento of personal property from another against the latter's will through violence or intimidation, with animo de lucro, unlawful taking of a property belonging to another is imputable to the offender. [20] | |||||