This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2002-07-18 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| to raise any scintilla of doubt about the physical impossibility of the former's presence at the locus criminis or its immediate vicinity at the time of the incident. [40] In fact, Sixto Paragas admitted that the flea market, where he allegedly was at the time of the incident, was near the Food Terminal Incoporated (FTI) compound -- the crime scene.[41] Thus, there still existed the possibility of his leaving the LMR stall | |||||
|
2002-06-05 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| In the case at bar, the alibi of appellant failed to meet these requisites.[32] First, while the two defense witnesses established that he was in Barangay Salvador harvesting palay, both failed to show or to preclude any doubt about the physical impossibility for him to be in complainants' house or its immediate vicinity.[33] on that fateful night.[34] Although the place where he claimed to be at the time of the commission of the crime was nine (9) kilometers away from Barangay Balintocatoc, the possibility of being physically present at the crime scene or its immediate vicinity was still there.[35] As correctly pointed out by the RTC, both barangays were easily accessible to tricycle and other motor vehicles. | |||||
|
2002-06-05 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| In the case at bar, all the foregoing elements are present. The contemporaneous acts of appellant and his co-accused stress the fact that they were initially motivated by animus lucrandi.[45] They first demanded guns, moneys and animals from Valentin Gabertan. Apparently, it was only when they entered the house and saw his wife when they thought of raping her.[46] The prosecution likewise established that appellant and his co-accused took chickens, a watch and money from complainants through violence.[47] | |||||