This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2002-06-06 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| We cannot ignore the tedious process undergone by the prosecution in piecing the evidence together in order to bring the appellant to justice. Painstaking police work resulted in his apprehension. Save for the victim's husband, we note that the prosecution witnesses were police officers and impartial third persons who had no motive to falsely testify against appellant. Moreover, it is likewise highly improbable that Col. Padilla, the victim's husband, would falsely accuse an innocent person of the crime, for his natural inclination would be to pinpoint the real culprit.[45] When there is no evidence that the witnesses for the prosecution were actuated by improper motive, the presumption is that they were not so actuated and their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit.[46] | |||||
|
2000-03-30 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| AQUINO thus missed the point in claiming that Stefen's testimony on the amount contained in the belt bag was uncorroborated. There is no need to prove the exact amount taken. What is material is that there be proof of the unlawful taking as in this case. Regardless of the actual amount inside the beltbag, the crime committed is still robbery with homicide. The elements of the crime were proved beyond reasonable doubt. In any event, in robbery with homicide, the important consideration is that there be a nexus between the robbery and the killing whether prior, subsequent to or committed at the same time.[57] | |||||
|
2000-03-07 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Robbery with Homicide is a special complex crime against property. Homicide is incidental to the robbery which is the main purpose of the criminal. [37] In charging Robbery with Homicide, the onus probandi is to establish: "(a) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; (b) the property belongs to another; (c) the taking is characterized with animus lucrandi; and (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, the crime of homicide, which is used in the generic sense, was committed." [38] Although there was no witness as to the actual robbing of the victim, there is testimony that the victim had more or less P2,000.00; and wore gold earrings valued at P750.00. These were never recovered. | |||||