This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2008-06-18 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| Here, Bernabe was suddenly shot without any warning by appellant at a distance of about 3 to 4 meters. An unexpected and sudden attack, which renders the victim unable and unprepared to defend himself by reason of the suddenness of the attack, constitutes alevosia.[54] Even a frontal attack could be treacherous when unexpected and on an unarmed victim would be in no position to repel the attack or avoid it.[55] | |||||
|
2006-01-24 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Finally, this Court agrees that treachery attended the slaying of Roces. This qualifying circumstance can be appreciated when the killing was sudden and unexpected and the victim is not in a position to defend himself.[37] The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by the aggressor on an unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself, thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor.[38] The existence or non-existence of treachery is not dependent on the success of the assault, for treachery may still be appreciated even when the victim was forewarned of danger to his person. What is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate.[39] Thus, even a frontal attack could be treacherous when unexpected and on an unarmed victim who would be in no position to repel the attack or avoid it.[40] | |||||
|
2004-05-28 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| Civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 given by the court a quo to the heirs of the victim should be upheld as being consistent with current jurisprudence.[30] Civil indemnity is automatically imposed upon the accused without need of proof other than the fact of the commission of murder or homicide.[31] However, the P50,000.00 awarded as actual damages for the hospitalization, medical and funeral expenses incurred by the family of the victim cannot be sustained for being unsubstantiated by receipts. | |||||
|
2004-01-20 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Treachery or alevosia is present when the offender commits any crime against persons employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof, which tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to the offender arising from any defense which the offended party might make.[52] Two essential requisites must concur for treachery to be appreciated: (a) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (b) the said means of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted.[53] | |||||
|
2003-11-28 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Time and again, we ruled that the positive identification of the appellants, when categorical and consistent and without any ill-motive on the part of the eyewitnesses testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial. Unless substantiated by clear and convincing proof, which is not present in this case, such defenses are negative, self-serving, and undeserving of any weight in law.[47] | |||||
|
2003-10-01 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Petitioner argues that he was denied the "cold neutrality of an impartial judge", because the ponente of the assailed decision acted both as magistrate and advocate when he propounded "very extensive clarificatory questions" on the witnesses. Surely, the Sandiganbayan, as a trial court, is not an idle arbiter during a trial. It can propound clarificatory questions to witnesses in order to ferret out the truth. The impartiality of the court cannot be assailed on the ground that clarificatory questions were asked during the trial.[52] | |||||