This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2002-07-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| might make.[42] It is settled that there is treachery if the victim, when killed, was sleeping[43] or had just awakened,[44] because in such cases the victim was in no position to put up any form of defense. However, the prosecution must still establish how the attack commenced.[45] When Mrs. Bates went out of the house to call Danilo, she saw appellant already attacking her son who was lying on the bench. She claimed that her son was sleeping, but presented no evidence to show that he was actually asleep when attacked and thus had no opportunity to defend himself. Where no particulars are known regarding the manner in which the aggression was made or how the act which resulted in the victim's death began and developed, it cannot be established from mere supposition that the accused perpetrated the killing with treachery.[46] Any doubt as to the existence of the treachery must be resolved in favor of the accused.[47][47] Note that the information also alleged "evident premeditation." Our perusal of the records, however, fails to disclose any factual basis for the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation. Evident premeditation may not be appreciated where there is no proof as to how | |||||
|
2001-06-28 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Third. Turning now to the denomination of the crime, both the trial and appellate courts correctly held the crime to be homicide. The qualifying circumstance of treachery, though alleged in the information, cannot qualify the killing to murder since no details were shown regarding the manner in which the aggression was made or how the act which resulted in the death of the victim began and developed. There is no evidence showing that the attack on the victim came without warning and that he had absolutely no opportunity to defend himself or to escape.[39] Petitioner's attack was already well under way when Marino Atienza looked out of the window of his uncle's house. | |||||
|
2000-11-15 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| We hold, however, that the absence of an eyewitness makes the reliance on circumstantial evidence inevitable. Circumstantial evidence is defined as that which indirectly proves a fact in issue through an inference which the factfinder draws from the evidence established.[15] Resort thereto is essential when the lack of direct testimony would result in setting a felon free.[16] | |||||
|
2000-10-11 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| The imposable penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal. In the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the penalty is imposed in its medium period.[62] The Indeterminate Sentence Law applies. | |||||
|
2000-10-05 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| However, after close scrutiny of the records, we are not fully persuaded that treachery qualified the crime. For treachery to be appreciated, two essential elements must concur: (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) the said means of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted. What is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or retaliate.[33] In this case, there is no clear showing that Gedie could not defend himself when he was attacked. Note that there were two stabbing incidents, the first by Hilot and the second by Bihag. The time elapsed between the first and second incidents, however, was not significant. For Gerundino immediately rushed to the kitchen in response to Gedie's cry for help. Hilot had wounded Gedie in the chest. Nonetheless, Gedie continued his struggle against Hilot. Gedie was aided then by his father who had grabbed, disarmed and pinned Hilot to the floor. Gedie backed up against the kitchen wall. This was when the kitchen door opened and appellant appeared and stabbed Gedie in the neck. Although wounded, it was not established that Gedie was already incapacitated from offering any resistance or defense, particularly with the aid of his father, when the second stabbing occurred. He had, after all, just fought Hilot valiantly. He had to be on guard against the possibility that the latter might get loose from Gerundino's hold. Nor could he discount the possibility that Hilot had a confederate waiting to join the assault. In short, the victim was aware of further dangers to life and limb. The fact that the attacker used a bladed weapon did not per se make the attack treacherous. Treachery must be proved by clear and convincing evidence or as conclusively as the killing itself.[34] Any doubt as to the existence of treachery must be resolved in favor of the accused.[35] Absent clear and convincing proof of treachery, appellant can only be convicted of homicide. | |||||
|
2000-08-18 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Court's Ruling We do not agree. Circumstantial evidence suffices to convict. Resort to circumstantial evidence is essential when to insist on direct testimony would result in setting felons free.[10] The following facts prove | |||||
|
2000-08-18 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| We recall the case of People v. Santos.[20] There, we affirmed the conviction of the accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence. There, two of the four compelling links[21] | |||||
|
2000-08-18 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| hypothesis or conjuncture. In the absence of proof as to how the killing was perpetrated, the crime committed is only homicide.[36] The penalty imposable is reclusion temporal.[37] In the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the penalty is imposed in its medium period.[38] | |||||