This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2004-05-20 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Under Section 3, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, an extrajudicial confession made by an accused, shall not be sufficient ground for conviction, unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. The Rule specifically requires that there should be some other evidence "tending to show the commission of the crime apart from the confession."[28] Appellant's confession is corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti, that is, the body of the crime and, in its primary sense, that a crime has actually been committed.[29] | |||||
|
2003-08-12 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| A review of the evidence on record, nevertheless, would still warrant an affirmance of the trial court's judgment of conviction. The crime of robbery with homicide, penalized under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, requires proof that (a) the taking of personal property is done through violence or intimidation against persons or force upon things; (b) the property taken belongs to another; (c) the taking is done with animus lucrandi (intent to gain); and (d) the commission of homicide (in its generic sense) occurs on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof.[12] There must be an intimate connection between the robbery and the killing but, once shown, it matters not whether both crimes be committed at the same time or one be prior or subsequent to the other.[13] | |||||
|
2000-10-25 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi, and (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, the crime of homicide, in its generic sense, is committed.[43] It matters not that the victim was killed prior to the taking of the personal properties of the victim and the other occupants of the house. What is essential in robbery with homicide is that there be a "direct relation, and intimate connection between robbery and the killing, whether the latter be prior or subsequent to the former or whether both crimes be committed at the same time.[44] The rule is well-established that whenever homicide has been committed as a consequence of or on the occasion of the robbery, all those who took part as principals in the robbery will also be held guilty as principals of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide although they did not actually take part in the homicide, unless it clearly appears that they endeavored to prevent the homicide.[45] While Cando was bashing the head of the victim, and placing the personal items in his bag, nary a peep could be heard from Vargas and Rapcing. Their act of simply watching Cando shows their moral assent and complete acquiescence to the commission of the crime. Appellant Vargas claims that he was threatened at knife point to join appellant Cando in the commission of the crime. He is in effect invoking the exempting circumstance of compulsion of an irresistible force under Article 12, par. 5 of the Revised Penal Code. We have held | |||||