This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-07-15 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Treachery was correctly appreciated by the RTC and CA-Cebu. A treacherous attack is one in which the victim was not afforded any opportunity to defend himself or resist the attack.[17] The existence of treachery is not solely determined by the type of weapon used. If it appears that the weapon was deliberately chosen to insure the execution of the crime, and to render the victim defenseless, then treachery may be properly appreciated against the accused.[18] | |||||
|
2011-03-30 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The Revised Penal Code provides under Article 13(3) the mitigating circumstance that the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. We held, "This mitigating circumstance addresses itself to the intention of the offender at the particular moment when the offender executes or commits the criminal act."[16] We also held, "This mitigating circumstance is obtaining when there is a notable disparity between the means employed by the accused to commit a wrong and the resulting crime committed. The intention of the accused at the time of the commission of the crime is manifested from the weapon used, the mode of attack employed and the injury sustained by the victim."[17] | |||||