This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2009-10-30 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| True, on numerous occasions, we have held that where a killing was preceded by an argument or quarrel, then the qualifying circumstance of treachery can no longer be appreciated since the victim could be said to have been forewarned and could anticipate aggression from the assailants.[18] What is decisive in treachery, however, is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or retaliate.[19] | |||||
|
2004-01-15 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| COURT /to Atty. Tabucanon Q You shot him? A Yes, I distorted the drawer."[84] The above testimony is insufficient to establish the presence of treachery. There is no showing of the victim's position relative to appellant's at the time of the shooting. Besides, equally axiomatic is the rule that when a killing is preceded by an argument or a quarrel, treachery cannot be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance, because the deceased may be said to have been forewarned and to have anticipated aggression from the assailant.[85] | |||||
|
2003-06-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Q: Now, you said that the man rushed on your Manang Rosemarie, were they able to get near each other? A: Yes, sir. Q: And what did you notice when they were already near to each other? A: Then, I noticed that the man loosen his belt and he took off that belt from his waist. Q: After that man loosen his belt, took off from his waist, what did that man do? A: Then, that man chased Manang Rosemarie at a swing and then later on stabbed Manang Rosemarie.[28] It is apparent that Rosemarie tried to run away but appellant caught up with her. Based on eyewitness testimony, we are not convinced that treachery attended the commission of the crime. The stabbing was not instantaneous. It was preceded by heated arguments. The victim must have been forewarned that appellant might try to harm her. Where an argument or a quarrel preceded a killing, treachery is non-existent since the victim could be said to have been forewarned and could anticipate aggression from assailant.[29] | |||||
|
2001-03-07 |
DE LEON, JR., J. |
||||
| Neither can abuse of superior strength be appreciated. Mere superiority in number is not enough to constitute superior strength.[36] To be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance, what should be considered is not that there were three (3) or more assailants of one victim, but whether the aggressors took advantage of their combined strength in order to consummate the offense.[37] The prosecution did not present any direct proof that there was a deliberate intent on the part of the accused-appellants to take advantage of the obvious inequality of force between the victim and the accused-appellants. | |||||
|
2000-07-05 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| Unquestionably, and accused-appellant does not allege otherwise, conspiracy attended the killing of the victim. Conspiracy to exist does not require an agreement for an appreciable period prior to the occurrence.[19] It is sufficient that the form and manner in which the attack was accomplished clearly indicate unity of action and purpose.[20] In the case at bar, the presence of Luter, Sr. at the scene of the crime indubitably shows his complicity with his three sons in perpetuating the killing of Oscar. Polinar, Jr. positively identified Luter, Sr. as part of the group which surrounded Oscar and then gave chase to the victim towards the latter's house. A few minutes thereafter, the Orculas went to the house of Polinar, Jr. and the latter categorically testified that it was Luter, Sr. who approached him and inquired about his father and uncle. Alimasac was likewise unwavering in his testimony that he saw Luter, Sr. together with the other accused near the place where the victim's body was found. It has never been denied that bad blood existed between the Orculas and the victim because of a boundary dispute involving their properties and, hence, there was a motive for the accused in killing the victim.[21] Well-settled is the rule that motive can be essential to conviction where the evidence on the commission of the crime is circumstantial.[22] Conspiracy having been established, all the conspirators are liable as co-principals regardless of the manner and extent of their participation since in the contemplation of the law, the act of one is the act of all.[23] | |||||