This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-12-18 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| It is undisputed and was clearly established that when the victim suddenly fell face down with blood oozing from his neck, the witnesses, at that instant, saw the accused-appellant standing by the window just behind the victim, holding a scythe with blood flowing from it. Any man or even a child with sufficient reason could easily deduce that the accused-appellant committed that act, and it could be inferred just as easily that the witnesses did not actually see that act of hacking because of the suddenness of the act.[25] (Emphasis supplied) Furthermore, considering that the victim was seated when appellant hacked him from behind and that the attack was sudden,[26] only one conclusion can be drawn; that is, the victim had no time to react and defend himself.Moreover, even the cited cases in Lug-aw do not find application to the case at bar. In People v. Castor,[27] United States v. Perdon,[28] and United States v. Pangilion,[29] the Court ruled out the presence of treachery because of one of the following circumstances: first, the presence of numerous stab wounds would indicate the possibility of a frontal attack; second, there was a possibility that the victim could have offered resistance; third; there was no proof that the hacking was sudden or unexpected; fourth, the presence of several wounds (one at the back) makes it impossible to ascertain which blow was inflicted first; fifth, there was a possibility that a fight occurred before the hacking; sixth, there was evidence to show that there was a struggle before the eyewitnesses arrived at the scene of the crime. None of these circumstances are present in the case at bar. | |||||