This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2004-07-30 |
DAVIDE JR., CJ. |
||||
| Henry Aniversario's positive identification of Eduardo was further corroborated by Nelson's dying declaration, as relayed to Nilda, identifying Eduardo as the person responsible for the crime. As testified by Nilda, his brother Nelson identified Eduardo as his assailant. Nelson's declaration, uttered after he was shot and at the point of death, constituted a dying declaration. While, generally, a witness can testify only to those facts which are derived from his own perception, a recognized exception thereto is the reportage in open court of the declaration of a dying person made under the consciousness of an impending death where that person's death is the subject of inquiry in the case. To be admissible, a dying declaration must (1) refer to the cause and circumstances surrounding the declarant's death; (2) be made under the consciousness of an impending death; (3) be made freely and voluntarily without coercion or suggestions of improper influence; (4) be offered in a criminal case in which the death of the declarant is the subject of inquiry; and (5) the declarant must have been competent to testify as a witness had he been called upon to testify.[18] These requisites were sufficiently met in this case. Nelson, having been shot and hit on the chest and thigh, was already weak when he reached the doorstep of their house. Upon reaching their doorstep, Nelson wasted no time in uttering to his sister, Nilda, dalhin mo ako sa ospital. Nadali ako ni Eddie Boy Fluid. May kinalaman si Gerry Conti dahil kanya ang baril. (Nilda, bring me to a hospital. Eddie Boy Fluid got me. Gerry Conti has something to do with it as he owns the gun.) Feeling the weariness caused by his wounds and loss of blood, he uttered those words to his sister Nilda, asking to be brought to the hospital and informing her as to who is responsible for the crime at the same time. His consciousness of the seriousness of his condition was shown by his desire to be given immediate medical attention and his statement on the identity of the perpetrator of the crime, evidently out of fear that failing to do so could be too late. Indeed, Nelson shortly expired thereafter, thirty (30) minutes from arriving at the hospital due to exsanguination or severe loss of blood. | |||||
|
2001-07-19 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| We find insufficient evidence to show that accused-appellant dela Cruz was guilty of the first three elements of robbery with homicide. In robbery with homicide cases, the robbery itself must be proved as conclusively as any other essential element of the crime.[13] Robbery is the taking of personal property belonging to another, with intent to gain, by means of violence against or intimidation of any person or by using force upon things.[14] In this case, all that the witness Felicidad saw that night was the stabbing of her sister, not the taking of personal property. The taking cannot be assumed from the actions of accused-appellant as seen by Felicidad. She saw him at the doorway and then noticed him running out the store after the stabbing occurred. Felicidad claimed that the bag purportedly containing money was recovered empty the next day. However, it was undisputed that various persons had entered the store of the victims after the incident, including investigators and onlookers. The bag was not conclusively shown to contain money nor was the money ever recovered. Further, there was no substantial link from the loss of the contents of the bag to the accused, for the money was never seen in the possession of the accused. | |||||
|
2000-06-08 |
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] | |||||