This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-01-24 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Finally, this Court agrees that treachery attended the slaying of Roces. This qualifying circumstance can be appreciated when the killing was sudden and unexpected and the victim is not in a position to defend himself.[37] The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by the aggressor on an unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself, thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor.[38] The existence or non-existence of treachery is not dependent on the success of the assault, for treachery may still be appreciated even when the victim was forewarned of danger to his person. What is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate.[39] Thus, even a frontal attack could be treacherous when unexpected and on an unarmed victim who would be in no position to repel the attack or avoid it.[40] | |||||
|
2004-03-31 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| The postmortem examination conducted by Dr. Rosalina O. Victorio of the Office of the Municipal Health Officer showed that the victim sustained two stab wounds one at the upper middle portion of his abdomen, and the other at the upper portion of his chest which penetrated the right auricle of his heart.[4] It also showed that the victim had abrasions on the forehead, left eyelid and left cheek[5] which Dr. Victorio surmised came about as a result of the victim's fall after the stabbing.[6] The doctor concluded that the cause of the victim's death was acute hemorrhage due to a stab wound on the right auricle of the heart.[7] | |||||