Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. PABLITO NANG

This case has been cited 10 times or more.

	GR No. 181594 2008-08-28	PEOPLE v. ROLLY FLORA Y CANDELARIA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
(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.[44] In this case, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellants conspired and confabulated with each other in robbing the victim and his wife, Nenita Esperida, of money, at least; and in killing the victim, in the face of the clear and positive identification of appellants as the perpetrators.
	GR No. 135242 2002-04-19	PEOPLE v. RICARDO BAYLEN QUISUMBING, J.
Now, with regard to appellant's alibi. It is a cardinal rule that for alibi to prosper, credible and tangible proof of physical impossibility for the accused to be at the scene of the crime is indispensable.[23] In the case at bar, appellant claims that he returned to Gama Pequeño in the afternoon of March 18, 1995, but he went back to Malaguinabot immediately. As the trial court observed, appellant's alibi is feeble, hence unworthy of credence. The proximity of the two barangays, which can be negotiated by a vehicle in 20 minutes at slow speed, negates the physical impossibility of appellant's being at the scene of the crime. Moreover, appellant admitted having invited complainant to the dance party before proceeding to Malaguinabot, indicating that appellant could easily travel between barangays even just for social functions.
	GR Nos. 123138-39 2001-11-08	PEOPLE v. HONESTO LLANDELAR Y MAGANTI QUISUMBING, J.
Now, with regard to appellant's alibi. It is a cardinal rule that for alibi to prosper, credible proof that it was impossible for the accused to be at the scene of the crime is indispensable.[18] In this case, appellant claims that he was not at their house in Pag-ultan at the time the rape incidents occurred. But his claim that he was in Batangas from April to December 8, 1994, is not corroborated by competent evidence. Moreover, he failed to prove that it was physically impossible for him to go home to Pag-ultan if ever he was in the poblacion of Ragay at the time of the alleged rape. There were vehicles plying the route, and the remaining distance to his house could easily be covered by foot in an hour. Likewise, the uncle, Federico Llandelar, did not actually see if appellant really slept at his house all the while as he did not keep constant watch over him.
	GR Nos. 128816 & 139979-80 2001-08-08	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO CABILTO Y PACAYRA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The Court finds untenable the claim of accused-appellants that SPO1 Leandro Santos did not personally see who shot Jaime Dumagon. As categorically declared by SPO1 Santos, it was accused-appellant Cabilto who fired the gun.[16] As aptly explained by the trial court, although the killing of the deceased was perpetrated after the commission of the robbery, and in the process of escaping from the authorities, the same is regarded as integrated with robbery having been committed "by reason or on occasion" thereof. What is essential is that there is a nexus, an intimate connection between the robbery and the killing whether the latter be prior or subsequent to the former or whether both crimes were committed at the same time.[17]
	GR No. 118334 2001-02-20	PEOPLE v. LARRY CONSEJERO Y PASCUA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The crime committed by accused-appellant, however, could not be "robbery with homicide." The elements of said crime are as follows: a) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against a 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.[24]
	GR Nos. 135051-52 2000-12-14	PEOPLE v. CLARITO ARIZOBAL JOHN DOES PER CURIAM
In essence, the issues raised are factual and involve the credibility of the witnesses. It is doctrinally settled that in the absence of any showing that the trial court's calibration of factual issues, particularly on the matter of credibility, is flawed this Court is bound by its assessment. The rationale is the presumption that the trial court is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[14] We find no plausible reason to deviate therefrom.
	GR No. 120367 2000-10-16	PEOPLE v. ANTONIO BARRETA QUISUMBING, J.
In robbery with homicide, the prosecution must prove the following elements: (1) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; (2) the property thus taken belongs to another; (3) the taking is characterized by animus lucrandi; and (4) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, the crime of homicide, as used in its generic sense, was committed.[29] In robbery with homicide, the principal purpose of the accused must be shown to be to commit robbery, the homicide being committed either by reason of, or on occasion of the robbery.[30] The homicide may precede or occur after the robbery. What is essential is that there is a nexus, an 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.[31]
	GR No. 101335 2000-06-08	PEOPLE v. OSCAR ROBLES Y MOANA QUISUMBING, J.
The unexplained possession of stolen articles gives rise to a presumption of theft, unless it is proved that the owner of the articles was deprived of possession by violence or intimidation, in which case, the presumption becomes one of robbery.[26] In robbery with homicide cases, the prosecution need only prove these elements: (a) the taking of personal property is perpetrated by means of violence or intimidation against a person; (b) the property 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, here used in its generic sense, is committed.[27] The homicide may precede the robbery or may occur after the robbery. What is essential is that there is an 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.[28]
	GR No. 129071 2000-01-31	PEOPLE v. ROBERTO MILLIAM BELLOSILLO, J.
But while we agree with the factual findings of the lower court, we do not agree with the conclusion that the crime committed was Robbery with Homicide. Four (4) elements are necessary to constitute this complex crime: (a) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against the person; (b) the property 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 was committed.[56] It should therefore be concretely established that robbery was the principal purpose of the accused and that homicide was committed either by reason of or on the occasion of such robbery.[57]