This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2000-06-19 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, where treachery is alleged, the manner of attack must be proven. Absent any particulars as to the manner in which the aggression commenced or how the act which resulted in the death of the victim unfolded, treachery cannot be appreciated.[26] It cannot be presumed or concluded merely on the basis of the resulting crime.[27] In the case at bar, the prosecution presented Anacita's ambiguous testimony on how the attack began to support its claim that treachery attended the commission of the crime. Thus: "q - Before the stabbing was there conversation between them? a - My husband went outside our terrace. q - Then what happened? a - Then I saw him stabbed. q - By whom? a - By Angel. q - What weapon? a - I did not see the weapon used. Court: q - How many times? a - Only once. q - What did you do? a - I shouted. q - How far were you from the stabbing? a - More or less one (1) meter. Fiscal: q - Madam witness, when your husband was stabbed by Angel Rios, what was his position at that time? a - My husband was standing at that time. q - Where was your husband hit by the stab of Angel Rios? a - In his right stomach. q - What was the position of the accused when he stabbed your husband? a - I did not see. q - You did not see who stabbed your husband? What I mean to say is was the accused also fronting your husband? a - What I only saw, Your Honor, was my husband was stabbed." (Underscoring supplied.)[28] | |||||