This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2002-01-10 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Neither is there sufficient evidence to establish that appellant consciously adopted the mode of attack. The records reveal that (1) a day earlier there was a mishap involving Milanes' jeepney and Ferdinand Salva's tricycle; and (2) a verbal confrontation with curses had ensued between appellant's brother Ferdinand and Milanes. This was before the adversaries found themselves in a traffic jam and the Salvas yanked Milanes out of the jeepney.[33] Treachery is not present where the victim, before being attacked, had a heated argument with one of the malefactors which must have placed him on guard, aside from standing face to face with them, so that the initial assault was not sudden or unforeseen.[34] Even if the aggression was from behind, it is not treacherous if preceded by a heated argument.[35] | |||||
|
2000-05-31 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Q: Mr. Navarro, you said that while Doctor Arellano was cleaning the wound of Isauro Barba he was asked question who bumped him. Please tell us who was asking this question? A: Robles. Q: Is this the same Robles the policeman who arrived? A: Yes, sir. COURT: Was that particular question addressed to the Doctor? A: While the Doctor was cleaning the injuries, Robles was asking question on why and who bumped him because he sustained a swelling on the right temple. COURT: The Court was asking you to whom was the question addressed? Was the question addressed by the Police Officer to the Doctor or to the victim? A: The victim x x x x ATTY. SALAS: What did Isauro Barba answered (sic)? A: His answer was, Rogelio his piece-meal worker (underscoring supplied).[16] Judging from the nature and extent of Isauro's injuries, the seriousness of his condition was so apparent to him that it could safely be inferred that such ante-mortem declaration was made under the consciousness of an impending death. That his demise came swiftly or only a few hours after arrival at the hospital further emphasized his realization of the hopelessness of his recovery.[17] The records do not disclose that he was incompetent as a witness. Apparently his declaration was offered to prove the crime of robbery with homicide where his death was the subject of inquiry. However, the Court finds that his dying declaration did not sufficiently identify accused-appellant as the person responsible for his imminent death. | |||||