This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2000-09-14 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| At the outset we must stress that the trial court was categorical in its finding that "[n]obody declared that the victim was robbed of anything."[6] Yet it convicted Calabroso and Dumrique of robbery with homicide. This is glaring error. Where a complex crime is charged and the evidence fails to support the charge as to one of the component offenses, the defendant can be convicted only of the offense proved.[7] To be specific, absent any evidence that the accused indeed robbed the victim the special complex crime of robbery with homicide cannot stand.[8] Having ruled out robbery for want of evidence and satisfied of the equal liability of Calabroso and Dumrique for the death of Nacnac, the trial court should have convicted them only of homicide. | |||||