This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2002-08-27 |
|||||
| the rule requiring a party to specify the court where the appeal is being taken is merely directory. An error in designating the appellate court is not fatal to the appeal.[16] Further, petitioner's "Manifestation/Motion" and second notice of appeal, in substance, merely sought a correction of where to bring the petitioner's appeal. The "Manifestation/Motion" is not the withdrawal of appeal contemplated under Section 12 of Rule 122 of the Rules of | |||||
|
2002-02-19 |
DE LEON, JR., J. |
||||
| We disagree. The elements of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide are the following: (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 animo lucrandi, and (d) by reason of the robbery or on the occasion thereof, homicide (used in its generic sense) is committed.[25] The phrase "by reason" covers homicide committed before or after the taking of personal property of another, as long as the motive of the offender in killing a person before the robbery is to deprive the victim of his personal property which is sought to be accomplished by eliminating an obstacle or opposition, or in killing a person after the robbery to do away with a witness or to defend the possession of the stolen property.[26] The testimony of prosecution witness Jimmy Escala who was only an armslength away from the victim, Rolando Villamin, at the time of the incident, established the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, thus: Q: When the accused Ramil Matic stabbed Rolando Villamin (sic) what did the other three do? A: The three were holding him, sir. Q: You mentioned about a hold up earlier, why do you say that it was a hold up? A: They were able to take the money. Q: Who in particular took the money? A: His companion, sir. Q: And how much money was taken from the victim? A: P50.00, sir. xxx xxx xxx Q: Now, which happened first, the stabbing or the taking of the P50.00 money? A: The getting of the money.[27] The above testimony of Escala shows that the motive of the appellant was robbery. The trial court also observed that the victim initially resisted the taking of his money as evidenced by the three (3) abrasions he sustained on the head, particularly on the nose, upper lip and frontal region.[28] Apparently, the culprits held the arms of the victim to be able to take his money, then he was stabbed on the chest to forestall any further resistance.[29] Moreover, since Escala was following behind the victim's tricycle, and he was only an armslength away from the victim when the incident happened, the light of his tricycle which was directed at what lay in front of him made it possible for him to see the robbery and stabbing incident. Escala testified that he recognized the appellant as one of the assailants because the light of his tricycle was focused on them for a few seconds. Besides, in robbery with homicide, it does not matter whether the victim was killed prior to or after the taking of his personal property. What is essential is that there be a direct relation and intimate connection between the robbery and the killing, whether or not both crimes were committed at the same time.[30] The fact that only Fifty Pesos (P50.00) was taken from the victim only shows that robbers are usually uncertain of the amount they could get from the victim before the robbery, but it does not negate the commission of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide for the reason that the essential elements of the crime are present in this case, namely: (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 animo lucrandi, and (d) by reason of the robbery or on the occasion thereof, homicide (used in its generic sense) is committed.[31] | |||||
|
2002-01-29 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The trial court erred in sentencing accused-appellant Bernardino to an indeterminate penalty. Since the penalty of reclusion perpetua is imposed on him, accused-appellant Bernardino can not enjoy the benefit of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.[42] | |||||