This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2003-06-18 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| In the offense of robbery with homicide, a crime primarily classified as one against property and not against persons, the prosecution has to firmly establish the following elements: (a) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; (b) the property thus 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, which is therein used in a generic sense, was committed.[34] | |||||
|
2002-05-09 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Third. The admissibility of the extrajudicial confessions of accused-appellant is also attacked on the ground that these were extracted from him by means of torture, beatings, and threats to his life. The bare assertions of maltreatment by the police authorities in extracting confessions from the accused are not sufficient. The standing rule is that "where the defendants did not present evidence of compulsion, or duress nor violence on their person; where they failed to complain to the officer who administered their oaths; where they did not institute any criminal or administrative action against their alleged intimidators for maltreatment; where there appeared to be no marks of violence on their bodies; and where they did not have themselves examined by a reputable physician to buttress their claim," all these will be considered as indicating voluntariness.[53] Indeed, extrajudicial confessions are presumed to be voluntary, and, in the absence of conclusive evidence showing that the declarant's consent in executing the same has been vitiated, the confession will be sustained.[54] | |||||
|
2002-02-19 |
DE LEON, JR., J. |
||||
| The defense put up by the appellant is alibi. For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must not only prove his presence at another place at the time of the commission of the offense, but he must also demonstrate that it would be physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of the commission of the crime.[32] In the instant case, appellant was within the vicinity of the locus criminis when the crime was committed. Although he claimed that he was at his employer's stall waiting for the delivery of goods when the incident took place, he did not present his employer to corroborate his statement. Alibi is a weak defense and becomes even weaker by reason of the failure of the defense to present any corroboration.[33] More importantly, the defense of denial and alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification by prosecution witness Jimmy Escala that it was appellant Ramil Matic who stabbed the victim.[34] | |||||