This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-10-02 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| We disagree. It may be, as postulated, that the suddenness of the attack would not, by itself, suffice to support a finding of treachery.[35] Where, however, proof obtains that the victim was completely deprived of a real chance to defend himself against the attack, as in the instant case, thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor, and without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim, the qualifying circumstance of treachery ought to and should be appreciated.[36] Verily, what is decisive is that the attack was executed in a manner that the victim was rendered defenseless and unable to retaliate.[37] | |||||
|
2004-03-17 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| held therein that the victim could thus be said to have been forewarned of the aggression from appellant and his companions, giving him a chance to put up a defense. While the killing itself appears to have occurred on sudden impulse, it was preceded by acts of the accused showing hostility and a heated temper that indicated an imminent attack that should have put the deceased on guard. Then, too, in People v. Peralta,[31] treachery was ruled out because the victim saw the accused approach holding a firearm. Treachery cannot be appreciated here inasmuch as the obvious danger faced by the victim cannot be considered as sudden, unexpected, and unforeseen. Indeed, there is no treachery where the victim was aware of the danger to his life; when he chose to be courageous instead of | |||||
|
2002-02-28 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, which must be sufficiently proven by the defense,[36] is present when there is actual or imminent peril to one's life, limb, or right. There must be actual physical force or actual use of a weapon by the victim himself.[37] In this case, it is contended that the victim, who was armed with a bolo, approached Edep menacingly. But, there is no other competent evidence to corroborate this self-serving claim. Edep testified that he heard petitioner's warning that an armed man was behind him.[38] However, when asked about the weapon allegedly held by the victim, Edep replied that he did not see any as he turned around to face his supposed assailant.[39] It was only later that Edep claimed seeing a knife in the area where the victim fell.[40] One is thus led to suspect that Edep's claim that he saw a knife was a mere afterthought designed to exculpate his fellow officer from the charges against him. | |||||