This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-08-29 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The crime for which appellant was charged and convicted was robbery with homicide. It is a special complex crime against property.[21] Robbery with homicide exists when a homicide is committed either by reason, or on occasion, of the robbery. 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 or with intent to gain; and (d) on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, the crime of homicide, which is used in the generic sense, was committed.[22] | |||||
|
2001-12-03 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The inconsistencies pointed out by appellants in Sopeña's testimony, to our mind, are more apparent than real. Inconsistencies and discrepancies referring to minor and collateral matters and not touching upon the basic elements of the crime, do not impair the credibility of a witness.[21] Note that the pertinent portions of Sopeña's testimony on who, what, when and where of the crime are consistent. Sopeña positively pointed to appellants as among those who ganged up on the victim and gave specific details on how they inflicted fatal injuries upon him. Note likewise that the substance of Sopeña's testimony remained constant even under grueling cross-examination. Note further that appellants failed to show any improper motive why Sopeña would testify falsely against them. Neither could they point to any factual matter on record to support their allegation that Sopeña was biased against them. Absent any indication that a witness for the prosecution was moved by improper motive, the presumption is that said witness was not so moved, and that his testimony is entitled to full faith and credit.[22] | |||||
|
2001-03-26 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Anent the crime committed against Joel Jabol, the trial court was likewise correct when it found that it was frustrated murder. The gunshot hit Joel on the right subcostal area,[27] i.e., below the right rib. This was a mortal wound which could have caused Joel Jabol's death, considering the vital organs in that part of the body. But due to timely medical attention, he survived. The intervention of medical treatment was independent of accused-appellant's will. A felony is frustrated where the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator,[28] such as prompt medical aid.[29] | |||||