This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2007-03-23 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself, thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor. In this case, treachery was already present when appellant and Insigne, armed each with a bolo, approached the victim and suddenly stabbed him. Rañin did not have the faintest idea that he was vulnerable to an attack, considering that he was boarding his bicycle, oblivious of the sinister intent of appellant and Insigne. The fact that the victim was facing his malefactors at the time of the latter's attack did not erase its treacherous nature. Even if the assault were frontal, there was treachery if it was so sudden and unexpected that the victim had no time to prepare for his defense.[43] Even more, the fact that appellant and Insigne chased the victim to inflict more stabbing blows after the latter had already been gravely wounded clearly exhibits the treacherous nature of the killing of the victim. | |||||
|
2005-06-08 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The testimony of a witness must be considered and calibrated in its entirety and not by truncated portions thereof or isolated passages therein.[33] It is perfectly reasonable to believe the testimony of a witness with respect to some facts and disbelieve it with respect to other facts,[34] as there is hardly a witness who can perfectly remember the details of a crime. Human memory is not as unerring as a photograph.[35] Thus, corroborative evidence in order to be credible need not coincide on all aspects.[36] | |||||
|
2002-04-19 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| This contention is devoid of merit. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself, thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor. In this case, treachery was already present when Efren, armed with a bolo, approached Alfredo and suddenly stabbed him. Alfredo did not have the faintest idea that he was vulnerable to an attack, considering that he was resting his head on his arms at the table oblivious of the sinister intent of Efren. Due to the suddenness of the attack, witness Quiling who was just beside Alfredo was not able to help him. He had no inkling whatsoever that Efren would stab Alfredo since the former did not carry his weapon openly. Only when Efren got near the victim did he immediately draw his weapon.[36] While Efren may not have succeeded in his initial thrusts, as in fact, Alfredo was able to parry his first blow, this nonetheless is quite insignificant because the existence or non-existence of treachery is not dependent on the success of the assault.[37] The fact that Alfredo was facing Efren at the same moment as the latter's attack did not erase its treacherous nature. Even if the assault were frontal, there was treachery if it was so sudden and unexpected that the victim had no time to prepare for his defense.[38] | |||||