This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2004-03-25 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Treachery is present 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] What is decisive in treachery is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself.[37] Stated differently, the essence of treachery is the swift and unexpected attack by an aggressor on an unarmed and unsuspecting victim who does not give any slight provocation, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself.[38] | |||||
|
2004-01-20 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The victim was in bed, flat on his back, when the killer went on top of him and stabbed him several times.[56] The killing occurred at three o'clock in the morning, an hour when generally people are asleep. The victim had been awakened when the killer entered the room and on seeing the latter armed with a bolo, he remarked, "Papatayin mo ako, bakit mo ako papatayin?" Evidently the victim was caught unaware totally defenseless against the armed invader. Even when the victim was warned of the danger to his person as long as the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate, treachery could be appreciated.[57] | |||||
|
2004-01-20 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| There is conspiracy when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it.[73] Conspiracy as a mode of committing a crime must be proved separately from and with the same quantum of proof as the offense itself, but from its essential features of secrecy and concealment, it need not be proved by direct evidence. Instead, it is sufficient for conspiracy to be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the felony, showing they had acted with a common purpose and design.[74] Stated differently, the rule is that conviction is proper upon proof that the accused acted in concert, each of them doing his part to fulfill the common unlawful design, each doing a part so that their combined acts, though apparently independent of each other, were, in fact, connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment.[75] In such a case, the act of one becomes the act of all and each of the accused will be deemed equally guilty of the crime committed.[76] | |||||