This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2002-09-17 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| necessary for him to kill Mayolito Cabatu, or try to kill Florencia Cabatu with the attendant evident premeditation, i.e., the execution of the criminal act must come with sober thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.[7] In turn, because of accused-appellant's mental and moral stupor at the time of the perpetration of the criminal acts, the prosecution could not have proved the requisites of this qualifying circumstance: (a) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (b) an act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his determination; and, (c) a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and the execution to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act and for his conscience to overcome his will. In the same vein, having been inebriated and overtaken by anger immediately prior to the assault, accused-appellant cannot be accused of treachery. Under this state, he did not have the time nor the proper disposition to reflect on the means or mode of attack for it to be | |||||