This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2002-09-19 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| premeditation.[67] While the appellant might have nursed a grudge or resentment against the victim, that circumstance is not a conclusive proof of evident premeditation.[68] | |||||
|
2001-04-04 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| The rule has always been that self-defense cannot be proved other than by sufficient and credible evidence which would exclude any vestige of criminal aggression on the part of the person invoking it,[11] nor can it be justifiably entertained where it is not only uncorroborated but is, in itself, extremely doubtful.[12] Accused-appellant has a good point, however, in contending that the finding of treachery by the trial court is not sustainable. The suddenness of an attack does not, of itself, suffice to support a finding of alevosia. Treachery, or "alevosia" cannot be assumed and its existence must be proven as fully as the crime itself.[13] The aggression exhibited by accused-appellant Flores could not have been totally unexpected. Although occupied with the tong-its game, Baldevieso knew that accused-appellant, with whom he had a long standing feud and who had made no secret of his intent to kill him, was coming his way. Even his wife's words, "Umuwi ka na dahil nandyan na si Ronnie," was a warning he refused to heed. Verily, treachery would not be attendant when the victim, aware of the danger on his life, chose to be courageous, instead of being cautious, and to court an obvious danger that might have well been avoided.[14] Neither could the facts here shown support the charge of evident premeditation alleged in the Information. The element of evident premeditation is manifested by the planning and preparation undertaken by the offender prior to the commission of the crime.[15] It is not presumed from the mere lapse of time[16] nor can it be deduced from sheer speculation.[17] An intangible matter, evident premeditation is exhibited from these circumstances --- (1) the time when the offender has appeared determined to commit the crime; (2) the act evidently indicating that the offender has clung to his determination; (3) sufficient lapse of time between the determination to commit the crime and the execution thereof during which the offender could have reflected upon the consequences of his act.[18] While the previously issued threats against the life of his victim may roughly be said to indicate premeditation, absent any other evidence disclosing the true criminal state of mind of the accused, threats of this variety are regarded by courts as casual remarks naturally emanating from a feeling of rancor and not a resolution of the character involved in evident premeditation.[19] The killing of Arnel Baldevieso deviates from the natural workings of the criminal mind which usually abhors detection and the possibility of retaliation. Instead of ensuring that his authorship of the crime would remain unknown, accused-appellant appears to have chosen to stab Arnel Baldevieso in broad daylight, in an accessible neighborhood corner and in the presence of a number of other persons who could easily identify him. Needless to say, these facts do not bear the earmarks of a carefully planned murder. | |||||
|
2000-08-18 |
KAPUNAN, J. |
||||
| his determination. Petitioner's threat, unsupported by other evidence which would disclose his true criminal state of mind, will only be construed as a casual remark naturally emanating from a feeling of rancor and not a resolution of the character involved in evident premeditation.[15] Evident premeditation having been wrongly appreciated in this case and there being no other qualifying circumstance established during the trial, the Court now holds that the crime committed in this case is frustrated homicide. | |||||