This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2000-10-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| retaliate; and 2) the deliberate and conscious adoption of the means of execution.[15] Relevant to the first is our ruling in People vs. Gasper, 225 SCRA 189 (1993) and People vs. Gupo, 190 SCRA 7 (1990). There is no treachery where the attack was preceded by a quarrel and a heated discussion. As shown by the testimony of Clemente, Sergio and Eduardo had an argument prompted by the latter's reply to the former's remark that he hated his nephew Sonny. Sergio berated Eduardo for being disrespectful and posed to box the latter.[16] After Clemente pacified Sergio, the latter went home, returned with a bolo and attacked Eduardo. On the second element, we note that the prosecution was not able to show that appellant intentionally allowed his brother-in-law to pacify him, so that he could go home, get his bolo and attack Eduardo. However, we do not discount the possibility that as soon as Sergio left | |||||
|
2000-09-13 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| We disagree with the trial court's finding, however, that treachery attended the killing of Teresita. Treachery exists when the following facts are shown: (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) the deliberate and conscious adoption of the means of execution.[54] Moreover, this Court has previously held that where treachery is alleged, the manner of attack must be proven. Absent any particulars on the manner in which the aggression commenced or how the act which resulted in the victim's death unfolded, treachery cannot be appreciated.[55] Florencio testified that Teresita Navarro walked four meters behind him. Florencio did not therefore witness the manner his wife was attacked by accused Albacin. He looked back to his wife only after he heard the fatal gunshot and saw Teresita already fallen. There is a dearth of evidence whether Teresita had no opportunity to defend herself or to retaliate, nor on whether the means of execution was consciously adopted even assuming arguendo that the attack was sudden.[56] | |||||
|
2000-08-15 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| (2) the deliberate and conscious adoption of the means of execution.[52] In the case at bar, it cannot be gainsaid that Wilfredo was without any opportunity to defend himself and to retaliate, having been ill and made to rise from bed only to meet Raul Gallego. While the attack may have been frontal, it was so sudden and unexpected that the unsuspecting Wilfredo did not have time to defend himself. As soon as Lina Echavez opened the door and Raul Gallego saw Wilfredo, he (Gallego) rushed to the latter seemingly to embrace him while he said, "(h)ere is my relative whom I am anxious to see". Then Gallego suddenly stabbed Wilfredo on the left chest, thereby inflicting a wound that could cause instantaneous death.[53] Wilfredo had not given, any provocation and was thus taken by surprise so that upon being stabbed, he uttered, "(w)hat have I done? Why did you do this to me?" This Court has previously ruled that even a frontal attack can be treacherous when it is sudden and unexpected end the victim was unarmed.[54] It is also undisputed that Raul Gallego deliberately adopted the particular means, method or form of attack employed by him. He purposely went to the Lamata abode carrying with him the deadly bladed weapon.[55] He even introduced himself as a certain Col. Latumbo who was a relative from Negros eager to see Wilfredo whom he had not seen an several years presumably not to raise any suspicion that harm would befall Wilfredo Lamata. With respect to the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation, we find that it cannot be appreciated. There is evident premeditation when the following facts are shown: (1) the time when the accused decided to commit the crime; (2) an overt act showing that the | |||||
|
2000-08-01 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| himself or to retaliate; and (2) the deliberate and conscious adoption of the means of execution.[51] It is also the running case law that where treachery is alleged, the manner of attack must be proven. Without any particulars as to the manner in which the aggression commenced or how the act which resulted in the victim's death unfolded, treachery cannot be appreciated.[52] In the case at bar, prosecution witness Cruz testified on what transpired immediately after the killing of the victim. He had no knowledge of the circumstances before the shooting and the shooting itself. There is therefore no proof that the victim had no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate. Nor is there any evidence to show that the victim was unarmed. Even assuming arguendo that the attack is sudden, there is no evidence that the means of execution was deliberately adopted.[53] The finding of the trial court that the accused shot the victim several times does not find support from the evidence on record. Evident premeditation cannot likewise be appreciated. There is evident premeditation when the following facts are proven: (1) the time when the accused decided to commit the crime; (2) an overt act showing that the accused clung to his determination to commit the crime; and | |||||