This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2003-07-17 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Conspiracy, aptly alleged in the amended information, has attended the commission of the crime. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of the felony and decide to commit it.[13] The prosecution has narrated in detail how the appellants and their co-accused have agreed to a common design to rob and kill the victim. The subsequent discovery of the lifeless body of the victim and the recovery by the police of the victim's belongings in the possession of the appellants would later confirm the execution of plan to rob and kill the victim. Where conspiracy is shown, the precise modality or extent of participation of each accused becomes secondary and the act of one may be imputed to all the conspirators.[14] In the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, it is not necessary to identify who among the conspirators have inflicted the stab wound on the victim.[15] | |||||
|
2003-01-28 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| We have long recognized that different people react differently to a given situation and there is no standard form of behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange, startling or frightful experience.[50] Witnessing a crime is one novel experience that elicits different reactions from witnesses for which no clear-cut standard of behavior can be drawn.[51] This is especially true if the assailant is physically near.[52] Moreover, it is not proper to judge the actions of children who have undergone traumatic experiences by the norms of behavior expected under the circumstances from mature persons.[53] | |||||
|
2001-10-26 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In People vs. Reyes,[17] we held that once a person has gained familiarity with another, identification becomes quite an easy task even from a considerable distance. In a number of cases, we ruled that the sound of the voice of a person is an acceptable means of identification where it is established that the witness and the accused knew each other personally and closely for a number of years.[18] Appellant did not deny that he and Roberta had known each other since childhood[19] and that appellant and Roberta's husband were "barkada."[20] It is not impossible then that complainant could immediately recognize appellant through his voice alone. In addition, appellant's face was very near the victim[21] such that the victim could not have misidentified him, even only by voice recognition. | |||||