This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2000-10-16 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Where the accused's attack was so sudden and launched from behind that the victim was caught off guard without an opportunity to defend himself,[30] treachery is present. Treachery having attended the killing, the crime was correctly characterized as murder. However, evident premeditation, though alleged in the Information, was not sufficiently proved by clear and convincing evidence. | |||||
|
2000-07-31 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| commission.[50] In the instant case, the trial court disbelieved appellant's alibi. Said the court: "[A]s testified to by accused's wife, it only takes a 25-minute ride by tricycle to negotiate the distance from the accused's house to the locus criminis and it becomes indubitably clear that there was no physical impossibility at all for the accused to be at the scene | |||||
|
2000-07-24 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Molina's group, the latter stabbed Joseph Bon-ao at his back. The sudden and unanticipated killing of Joseph Bon-ao reinforced the trial court's finding of treachery, bolstered by the fact that the striking blow was at the back of the victims.[53] The same holds true to Angelito who was completely caught off guard as he was stabbed three (3) times when he chose to aid his brother Joseph. The Bon-aos had no inkling that Joseph's inquiry on who shouted "kuba" would foreshadow the untimely demise of Joseph and the near death of Angelito. As consistently held by this Court, an unexpected and sudden attack under circumstances which render the victim unable and unprepared to defend himself by reason of the suddenness and severity of the attack constitutes alevosia or treachery.[54] Its essence lies in the adoption of ways that minimize or neutralize any resistance which may be put up by the unsuspecting victim.[55] On the aggravating circumstance of recidivism, the trial court properly appreciated the same though not alleged in the information. Article 14(9) of the Revised Penal Code defines a recidivist as "one who, at the time of his trial for one crime shall have been previously | |||||
|
2000-07-12 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| For alibi to be tenable, accused must establish by clear and convincing evidence that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene at the time of commission.[19] Accused-appellant presented witnesses to corroborate his claim of alibi. | |||||
|
2000-07-05 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| At any rate, even in the absence of this piece of evidence, the conviction of accused-appellant can still stand on the basis of all the other circumstances hereinbefore mentioned which when put together constitute an unbroken chain, consistent with each other and the theory that accused-appellant authored the crime charged.[18] | |||||