This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2004-06-17 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| In line with current jurisprudence, we sustain the award of civil indemnity. This may be granted without need of proof other than the fact that a crime has been committed and that the accused was responsible therefor.[83] | |||||
|
2004-06-04 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Treachery is not presumed.[34] Treachery must be proven as clearly and as cogently as the crime itself.[35] There is treachery (alevosia) when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[36] Two conditions must concur for treachery to be present, viz: (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 were deliberately or consciously adopted.[37] Treachery cannot be appreciated if it has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the assailant did not make any preparation to kill the victim in such a manner as to insure the killing or to make it impossible or difficult for the victim to defend himself.[38] The prosecution must prove that the killing was premeditated or that the assailant chose a method of attack directly and specially to facilitate and insure the killing without risk to himself.[39] The mode of attack must be planned by the offender and must not spring from the unexpected turn of events.[40] | |||||