This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2001-09-19 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| There is treachery when: (1) the means of execution employed gives the person no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and (2) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.[43] In this case, the evidence shows that accused-appellant and his companions, both of whom are still at large, grabbed and dragged the victim and thereafter hacked him 13 times with a bolo. The victim, who was unarmed, had no opportunity to defend himself. While it is true that the autopsy report, as testified by Dr. Casiano, reveals that there was a frontal attack, such does not negate treachery. Treachery is still present even in a frontal attack when it is sudden and the victim is unarmed.[44] Thus, even if the victim is forewarned of the danger to his person, treachery may still be appreciated if it is carried out in a way which made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate.[45] | |||||
|
2001-08-20 |
BUENA, J. |
||||
| After a close scrutiny of the records, we are not fully persuaded that treachery qualified the crime. Circumstances qualifying a killing to murder such as treachery must be proven as indubitably as the crime itself.[23] For treachery to be appreciated, two conditions 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 be deliberately or consciously adopted.[24] In the instant case, the victim was shot at his back while attempting to run. While the initial shooting that hit Ganongan at his back appears to have been sudden and unexpected, suddenness of attack does not, of itself, suffice to support a finding of treachery, so long as the decision to kill was made at that instant and the victim's helpless position was accidental.[25] In the instant case, prosecution witness Florencio Dagson testified that he was walking ahead of his friends and he was not able to witness how the altercation started. The failure of the prosecution to present evidence as to the manner in which the altercation started precludes a finding that the killing was qualified by treachery.[26] Here, Dagson's attention was caught by the loud voices coming from behind and seeing his friends being stopped by a group of men, he hurriedly sought the help of his friends in the boarding house. Arriving at the scene, Jeffrey Alimani, Oliver Alimani and Florencio Dagson saw that both Carlos Garcia and accused-appellant were holding their respective guns. Significantly, they testified that accused-appellant fired at Ganongan. To establish treachery, the evidence must show that the accused has made some preparations to kill the victim in such a manner as to ensure the execution of the crime or to make it impossible or hard for the person attacked to defend himself. A killing done at the spur of the moment is not treacherous.[27] What was clear was the fact that prosecution witnesses saw accused-appellant shot Ganongan. No more, no less. The prosecution failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that accused-appellant deliberately adopted such means of execution to ensure the killing of Ganongan. Any doubt as to the existence of treachery must be resolved in favor of the accused.[28] Hence, absent clear and convincing proof of treachery, accused-appellant can only be convicted of homicide. | |||||
|
2001-06-20 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Fourth. The trial court correctly found treachery in the manner by which the accused-appellant killed the victim.[40] The elements of treachery are: (1) the means of execution employed gives the person no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and (2) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.[41] Accused-appellant shot the victim from behind while he was playing billiards. The victim was totally unaware and was thus rendered defenseless. The eyewitness account of Fe Claros and the medical report of Dr. Sator fully established the employment of treachery in the killing of the victim. | |||||
|
2001-03-07 |
DE LEON, JR., J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant Antonio L. Samudio failed to discharge this burden convincingly for he did not adequately support his allegation of self-defense. No one corroborated his testimony that the aggression was initiated by the victim, Baldomero San Juan. Thus, his testimony is self-serving. An accused who invokes self-defense has to rely on the strength of his evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution's evidence, for, even if the latter were weak, it could not be disbelieved after his open admission of responsibility for the killing.[31] | |||||