This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-08-29 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Appellant's argument that it was natural for him to be at the house of the victim at around the time of the incident as he lives there does not persuade. True, the mere presence of appellant at the scene is inadequate to support the conclusion that he committed the crime.[36] However, his presence there becomes an indicium of his commission of the offense when coupled with his unexplained act of fleeing from the situs instead of reporting the incident to the police authorities, as well as with his act of hiding until he was arrested.[37] Taken together, the foregoing circumstances are highly indicative of guilt.[38] | |||||
|
2009-06-26 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Intent to rob is an internal act, but may be inferred from proof of violent unlawful taking of personal property. When the fact of asportation has been established beyond reasonable doubt, conviction of the accused is justified even if the property subject of the robbery is not presented in court. After all, the property stolen may have been abandoned or thrown away and destroyed by the robber or recovered by the owner.[41] The prosecution is not burdened to prove the actual value of the property stolen or amount stolen from the victim. Whether the robber knew the actual amount in the possession of the victim is of no moment, because the motive for robbery can exist regardless of the exact amount or value involved.[42] | |||||
|
2003-08-12 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| Admittedly, there is no eyewitness to the commission of the crime; a conviction can thus only rest on circumstantial evidence. Rule 133, Section 4, of the Rules of Court provides that circumstantial evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction if - (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) the combination of all circumstances is such as to produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Indeed, direct evidence of the commission of the crime is not the only matrix from which a trial court may draw its conclusion and finding of guilt,[14] and facts and circumstances consistent with guilt and inconsistent with innocence can well constitute evidence which, in weight and probative force, may not too infrequently even surpass direct evidence in its effect upon the court.[15] | |||||