This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2010-02-01 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses thus established beyond reasonable doubt the elements of robbery with homicide, namely: 1) the taking of personal property was committed with violence or intimidation against persons; 2) the property taken belongs to another; 3) the taking was done with animo lucrandi; and 4) by reason of the robbery or on the occasion thereof, the crime of homicide which is therein used in a generic sense, was committed.[29] | |||||
|
2009-07-27 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Appellants fault the CA for relying on the improbable testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, who testified that they saw the former at the crime scene riding a pedicab. Appellants add that it was improbable for them not to leave the crime scene immediately after the robbery. It is well-settled that different people react differently to a given situation, and there is no standard form of human behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange event.[25] Moreover, when it comes to credibility, the trial court's assessment deserves great weight and is even conclusive and binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence. The reason is obvious. Having the full opportunity to observe directly the witnesses' deportment and manner of testifying, the trial court is in a better position than the appellate court to evaluate testimonial evidence properly.[26] | |||||
|
2008-08-06 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| To warrant conviction for the crime of robbery with homicide, one that is primarily classified as a crime against property and not against persons, the prosecution has to firmly establish the following elements: (1) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against the person; (2) the property thus taken belongs to another; (3) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi; and (4) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, the crime of homicide, which is therein used in a generic sense, is committed.[95] | |||||
|
2008-06-27 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code[25] classifies robbery with homicide as a crime against property[26] with the following elements: 1) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against persons; 2) personal property thus taken belongs to another; 3) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi; and 4) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, the crime of homicide, which is therein used in its generic sense, was committed.[27] The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life.[28] So long as the intention of the felons was to rob, the killing may occur before, during or after the robbery.[29] It is immaterial that death would supervene by mere accident or that the victim of homicide is other than the victim of robbery or that two or more persons are killed. It is likewise not necessary to identify who among the conspirators inflicted the fatal wound on the victim.[30] Once a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, the felony committed is the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide.[31] | |||||
|
2008-04-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| We are in accord with the grant by the Court of Appeals of civil indemnity; however, in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence, we increase the same to P75,000.00. The amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity is awarded only if the crime is qualified by circumstances which warrant the imposition of the death penalty.[49] Though the penalty imposed on appellant was reduced to reclusion perpetua pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346, civil indemnity to be awarded remains at P75,000.00. We also agree with the award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00. We award the same as the circumstances surrounding the untimely and violent death, in accordance with human nature and experience, could have brought nothing but emotional pain and anguish to the victim's family.[50] | |||||
|
2008-04-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The amount of P75,000.00 for civil indemnity awarded by the trial court as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, is sustained. The award for civil indemnity is mandatory and is granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[17] The amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity is awarded only if the crime is qualified by circumstances which warrant the imposition of the death penalty.[18] Though the penalty imposed on appellant was reduced to reclusion perpetua, the civil indemnity to be awarded remains at P75,000.00. | |||||