This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2014-04-07 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| First, in order to sustain a conviction for the crime of robbery with homicide, it is necessary that the robbery itself be proven as conclusively as any other essential element of the crime.[21] In order for the crime of robbery with homicide to exist, it must be established that a robbery has actually taken place and that, as a consequence or on the occasion of robbery, a homicide be committed.[22] | |||||
|
2012-12-03 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Also, Mallari's positive identification of petitioners as the perpetrators of the robbery and the absence of any ill-motive on his part to testify falsely against them prevail over petitioners' denial and alibi. As repeatedly held, alibi is the weakest defense since it can easily be fabricated and difficult to disprove.[67] Hence as a rule, the defenses of denial and alibi can only prosper if there is evidence that the accused were not only in another place at the time of the commission of the crime, but also that it was physically impossible for them to be within the immediate vicinity.[68] Here, while petitioners denied being at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission, they failed to prove that it was physically impossible for them to be in the store at the time of the robbery. In fact, they testified that they were in a place only about 15 meters away from the scene of the crime. | |||||
|
2009-09-17 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Anthony's alibi, that he was at Alfredo Dalida's house, has no merit. Alibi is the weakest of defenses. To exonerate an accused, one must show that he was at some other place at the time of the commission of the offense and that he was so far removed from the crime scene or its immediate vicinity that it could not have been possible for him to have committed the crime.[23] In this case, the trial court found that the house of Alfredo Dalida, Sr. was only 200 meters away from the crime scene. Such short distance makes it physically possible for Anthony to be at the scene of the crime. The Court has patiently reiterated the requisites for alibi to prosper, that is, the accused was not at the locus delictiwhen the offense was committed and it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the approximate time of its commission.[24] Anthony failed to comply with the time and distance requisites of alibi. | |||||
|
2004-01-16 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Furthermore, to establish alibi, the appellant must show that it was impossible for him to have been at the place where the crime was committed.[41] Appellant admitted that he started his work in Tondo only on October 24, 1989, without giving any reason why he had to go to his place of work two days before he even began work or if, at all, what he did in the two days in between. As the trial court noted, there was nothing that could have prevented him from going home in Sampaloc and be at the place of the crime in the evening of October 22, 1989.[42] | |||||
|
2002-01-29 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[30] Its essence lies in the adoption of ways that avoid or neutralize any resistance which may be put up by the offended party. | |||||