This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2004-06-08 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| The attack on Victoriano is likewise unexpected since he was still reeling from the shock at having witnessed the stabbing of Felipe. It must also be noted that Victoriano was 81 years old at the time of the stabbing and his reflexes were worn down by age and by the alcohol he had consumed. Hence, he was not in a position to ward off the attack. The same may be said of the attacks on William Tacaldo and Juan Florencio. While it is true that Tacaldo and Florencio noticed the commotion moments before they were attacked, this fact alone does not rule out the presence of treachery. We have held that while a victim may have been warned of possible danger to his person, in treachery, what is decisive is that the attack was executed in such a manner as to make it impossible for the victim to retaliate.[29] The case at bar typifies this doctrine for Tacaldo and Florencio had no opportunity to defend themselves precisely because they did not expect to be the subject of any further attack by appellant. Thus, from the evidence adduced, the stabbing, although frontal, was so unexpected and sudden that it left the victims, all unarmed, with no opportunity to put up a defense.[30] | |||||
|
2003-04-04 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In People v. Javar,[39] this Court was clear in pronouncing that any statement obtained in violation of the Constitution, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, in whole or in part, shall be inadmissible in evidence. Even if the confession contains a grain of truth, if it was made without the assistance of counsel, it becomes inadmissible in evidence, regardless of the absence of coercion or even if it had been voluntarily given.[40] In People v. Gomez,[41] citing People v. Rodrigueza,[42] this Court held that Section 12(1), Article III of the Constitution requires the assistance of counsel to a person under custody even when he waives the right to counsel. | |||||
|
2000-12-04 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| We agree with the observation of the trial court that the circumstance that accused-appellant simply left Ellen alone in the house with Danilo, and instead of shielding his alleged lover who had "wholeheartedly" surrendered her body to him he abandoned her to his armed and drunk brother, are inconsistent with his "sweetheart theory." For another, accused-appellant and Danilo never returned to the house of the Caays after the 7 December 1994 incident thus strengthening the belief that he fled because of a guilty conscience.[18] | |||||