This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2015-11-25 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| The RTC and CA correctly ruled that the eyewitnesses were able to establish treachery on the basis of Manuel and Diego's testimony that accused-appellant shot the victim immediately after arriving as the latter turned around after talking to the witnesses.[22] The Court has ruled that the essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack, without the slightest provocation on the part of the person attacked.[23] In People v. Perez,[24] it was explained that a frontal attack, such as the shooting in this case, does not necessarily rule out treachery. The qualifying circumstance may still be appreciated if the attack was so sudden and so unexpected that the deceased had no time to prepare for his or her defense. The sudden appearance of accused-appellant while Raymundo was preoccupied talking to Manuel and Diego and the use of a firearm resulted in a situation where the attack caught the victim by surprise depriving him of the chance to put up any defense before the fatal shot was fired. While he was able to parry a second shot, the first shot fired by appellant has already inflicted a fatal wound in the victim's body. Thus, treachery was correctly appreciated in this case. | |||||